Bleacher Bums Forum

General Category => Archives => Topic started by: Dave23 on February 16, 2011, 11:55:09 am


Title: Politics, Religion, etc. etc. 2/16/11 - 5/9/13
Post by: Dave23 on February 16, 2011, 11:55:09 am
Blah...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FITS on February 16, 2011, 02:00:20 pm
Remind me to never come into this topic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 15, 2011, 02:00:52 pm
Liberals suck.

discuss.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 15, 2011, 02:01:39 pm
Is BEERFAN going to make it over to this forum?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on April 15, 2011, 02:05:03 pm
Tacx hikes on the rich NOBAMA wheres that hop and change?

(How was that for a Beer imitation?)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 15, 2011, 02:06:47 pm
Hop and change . . . love it!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on April 15, 2011, 02:21:27 pm
A community is missing its organizer!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 16, 2011, 01:39:20 pm
For Dave, considering our earlier discussion:  http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/03/17/lose-the-use-it-or-lose-it-rhetoric/

Let’s lose the “use it or lose it” rhetoric
March 17, 2011 | Posted by Ken Cohen

Every few years, it seems one politician or another tries to deflect attention from the importance of opening up access to new U.S. resources by incorrectly accusing the oil and gas industry of withholding commercial production in existing leases.

We’ve just seen this tactic used again. Yesterday, Senators Bill Nelson and Robert Menendez introduced what they’re calling the “use it or lose it” bill in the Senate. The premise of this bill is that oil companies are letting their oil and gas leases lay idle in the United States – and therefore the U.S. doesn’t need to grant more access to offshore and onshore energy resources, but rather just force oil companies to produce resources on tracts they already have leased.

If only it were that easy. The supporters of this legislation aren’t stating the facts correctly – and the truth is that a few important facts undermine their argument:

1. “Use it or lose it” is already the law. Oil and gas companies are already required to develop their properties within specific timeframes as set out in lease terms. Rents on the leases increase in later years to encourage faster development. In general, leases not producing by the end of their term are relinquished back to the government, which can then re-lease them.

And in addition to pointing out that this law is already on the books, I would also say what many in my industry are saying – companies like ExxonMobil cannot develop existing leases without drilling permits issued by the government. Given the delays on drilling permits we have seen recently, that is certainly a point worth noting.

2. Oil and gas companies have every motivation to develop leases because of the large up-front investments they require. Here’s how it works: First, companies pay a bonus bid – which can total millions of dollars – to the federal government to acquire a lease, which can last anywhere from five to 10 years. On top of that, we then make annual rent payments to the government to maintain the leases. And, it’s not like your apartment complex when you get your deposit back after you move out – if we don’t find oil or gas, we’ve lost that money.

After acquiring leases, we invest many millions more on seismic surveys, environmental studies, technology development and exploratory drilling to find the oil and gas, if we have reason to believe it exists. For example, one deepwater exploration well in the Gulf of Mexico can cost in excess of $125 million to complete. That’s a huge investment, especially when the chances of not finding oil or gas in an individual well are greater than the chances that we do find oil and gas. So, the only way to recoup the millions spent would be to produce oil or gas. In a highly competitive industry like ours, letting potentially productive leases lay idle would make no economic sense.

3. You can’t change geology. We spend a lot of fiscal and human capital to analyze and identify high-potential leases. But in some ways, it’s like buying raffle tickets at a school function – sure, you have a chance of winning the prize with one ticket, but your chances are greater the more tickets you buy.

For example, over a 10-year span starting in the late 1990s and continuing to the late 2000s, ExxonMobil evaluated more than 100 federal lease blocks in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. By the end of that decade, only one of those leases was actually producing commercial quantities of oil and gas. I think the president of the National Ocean Industries Association said it best last week: “Political pressure cannot change simple geology. Not every lease actually yields oil.” 

The fact is that the oil and natural gas exploration and production process cannot be turned on and off in a matter of days or even months. It can take a decade or more to evaluate and produce just one well – so what may appear to be an “idle” lease may actually be under development but not yet ready to produce. Or, the geology may be such that it may not contain oil and gas at all.

The reality is that, while the U.S. is endowed with substantial oil and natural gas resources, not every lease that the government provides results in new energy production. Justifying bans on accessing new areas simply because existing leases may not yield energy production is no way to secure America’s energy needs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 16, 2011, 02:33:36 pm
jes, what's your opinion on this? 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/news/story?id=6362238 (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/news/story?id=6362238)

I've cut back on my online poker a lot over the past year, but still like playing on there from time to time.  Still I'm not very happy about this.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 16, 2011, 04:29:33 pm
JR, my guess is that those operations will likely work out a deal where none of them do any jail time in exchange for agreeing to shut down their operations, and identifying all of the private individuals who have broken the laws of their states by using the internet to gamble, and thereby violated federal law since those internet communications crossed state lines.....  There are probably a couple of FBI agents preparing the warrant for your arrest right now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 16, 2011, 05:35:30 pm
. . . identifying all of the private individuals who have broken the laws of their states by using the internet to ****, and thereby violated federal law since those internet communications crossed state lines.....  There are probably a couple of FBI agents preparing the warrant for your arrest right now.

Wow, that's not good.  Well at least I know jes that you would believe in my case so much that you'd probably work for me pro bono to take on those FBI thugs. 

And if things went to trial, I'm lucky enough to have friends like DaveP, CurtOne, Scoop, etc. who would jump at the chance to be character witnesses for me and would vouch for my high level of integrity and character. 

Doesn't sound like I have much to worry about. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on April 16, 2011, 05:40:05 pm
"Your Honor, I would like to point out that Mr. Riddick is a fan of the Chicago Cubs.  As such, at this time, we notify the court of our intention to pursue a defense of 'mental disease or defect'."

"Case dismissed!"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 17, 2011, 02:29:04 pm
The article doesn't quite address what I advocated.

I do not recommend that we should change the current leases.  I am recommending that we change the perameters of new leases.

With current leases, once oil is found on a particular lease, there is little incentive to drill "lots" of oil quickly.  There are requirements for necessary production, but there is little incentives for large amounts of production.  companies always have to balance the desire for immediate profits with the need for long term benefits.  In a time of rising oil prices, there is a strong incentive to restrict production in order to be able to produce in the future at a higher price.  Why produce more than necessary today, merely reducing prices without increasing profits.

What I recommended was that at the end of a period of time, the lease ends, and the land, now with proven oil reserves, is put up for bid.  This gives the company a very strong immediate incentive to drill quickly, and to produce massive amounts of oil from that land before they either lose it or have to pay a much increased lease cost for the land.

The author also ommitted one important point.  It is true that current leases are for a period of time, usually 5 years but as long as ten year.  But he doesn't mention that the lease has an automatic renewal clause that prevents land that shows good promise to go back on the open market.

It is certainly true that this administration has put in quite a few obsticles to production, limiting or banning new drilling and overregulating current drilling.  Even the theoretically pro-oil Bush administration banned all drilling off the coast of Florida.  Extremely important issues, but irrelivant to the question we were discussing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 17, 2011, 02:30:26 pm
JR - I would be happy to appear in court to testify to your character.  But wouldn't you be better off with someone that didn't know you all that well?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on April 17, 2011, 03:53:43 pm
And if things went to trial, I'm lucky enough to have friends like DaveP, CurtOne, Scoop, etc. who would jump at the chance to be character witnesses for me and would vouch for my high level of integrity and character. 


Who's JR?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 17, 2011, 04:50:36 pm
What I recommended was that at the end of a period of time, the lease ends, and the land, now with proven oil reserves, is put up for bid.  This gives the company a very strong immediate incentive to drill quickly, and to produce massive amounts of oil from that land before they either lose it or have to pay a much increased lease cost for the land.

Yes, and it was as misguided an idea then as now.

companies always have to balance the desire for immediate profits with the need for long term benefits.  In a time of rising oil prices, there is a strong incentive to restrict production in order to be able to produce in the future at a higher price.  Why produce more than necessary today, merely reducing prices without increasing profits.

This is what illustrates that it is misguided.

In a properly functioning economy, where profits are not the result of theft, or slave labor, or government regulation which distorts decision making or grants a monopoly, or the failure of an economic activity to internalize all of its costs, profit is a measure of how valuable a particular activity or good or service is to society.  Forcing business (or even pressuring business) to make decisions which reduce the total profit, even when that is by reducing the price (at the moment) which consumers pay for the activity or good or service, reduces the total benefit to society.

Wen an oil company delays production because it anticipates greater profit in the future, it is assuring that future demands are going to be met.  Creating pressures to coerce oil companies, or ANY company providing any good or service, to bring a product to market now, when society does not value it as much as society will value it later, is misguided.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 17, 2011, 05:28:20 pm
Scoop, JR is that guy over at World Crossing that was always bragging on how he owed thousands in taxes because of his gambling gains, but that he was never going to pay.  Remember now?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 17, 2011, 09:40:31 pm
"Forcing business (or even pressuring business) to make decisions which reduce the total profit, even when that is by reducing the price (at the moment) which consumers pay for the activity or good or service, reduces the total benefit to society."

What I recommended does not force a company to do anything.  But no company has the right to decide what to do with land that belongs to the Federal Government.  The various companies can decide, each for themselves, how to maximize their profits within the structure of the lease.  They have the choice to enter into a contract with the Federal Government, or not to do so.  Just like any transaction, they have to proceed in accordance with the strictures of the leasor.  The strictures I recommend may not seem reasonable to you, but that is because you, not the recommendation, is unreasonable.

Saying that the government should not have rules that affect the marketplace is meaningless, since the government, as the landowner, IS a part of the marketplace and any action, or for that matter any inaction, has an effect on the marketplace.  The only thing left to be decided is what effect that government should have.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 17, 2011, 10:01:38 pm
After all the fuss about Air Traffic Controllers falling asleep on the job, another one did so yesterday.  I don't know if he should be fired, but anyone that stupid should certainly be sterylized.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 18, 2011, 07:13:20 am
What I recommended does not force a company to do anything. 

"Forcing business (or even pressuring business)....

Dave, the part in parenthesis is still part of the sentence.

But no company has the right to decide what to do with land that belongs to the Federal Government.

At no point have I suggested that the Federal Government lacks the right to impose the lease restrictions or requirements which we have been discussing.  My comments have focused instead on whether such restrictions or requirements are good or bad for society, which is why I wrote that it "reduces the total benefit to society."

The various companies can decide, each for themselves, how to maximize their profits within the structure of the lease. 

That is true even when the mineral rights are leased from a private property owner.  Government certainly has the power to impose such use restrictions on leases from private property owners, or to require all owners of property to use the land instead of leaving it fallow, or to use the land for agricultural purposes instead of any other purpose, and even require that the crops are planted the first day of January each year.

Now, every one of those things would be foolish and misguided and reduce the total benefit to society.  But government could certainly do so.  I would hope that if someone pointed out to you that such restrictions were misguided and reduced the total benefit to society you could get beyond the question of whether government has the power or authority to impose such restrictions.

Saying that the government should not have rules that affect the marketplace is meaningless, since the government, as the landowner, IS a part of the marketplace and any action, or for that matter any inaction, has an effect on the marketplace. 

Dave, you spent time in the military, so I will use a military example.  Saying that a military action should have as little effect as possible on civilian populations is meaningless, since the military, drawing its members from the civilian population and any military action, or for that matter inaction, therefore has an effect on the civilian population.  And, therefore, Dresden and Hiroshima are fine and not even worth discussing.

Yes,  The very existence of government effects the marketplace.  A good government, which allows unrestricted marketplace choices, enforces contracts, prosecutes fraud, provides a stable currency, borders secure from military invasion, unrestricted international trade, a system of resolving disputes, rule of law, and an orderly transfer of power from one regime to another, effects the marketplace a great deal.  Such a government allows the market to flourish, and that is certainly influencing the market.

That is quite difference from government actions which are designed to influence or produce a particular result, such as taxing the consumption of alcohol (though no other beverage or food)  in order to discourage consumption of alcohol.  Folks are still allowed to drink, though the goal is to get them to drink less.

You are right that to the greatest extent reasonable, government should reduce its role as a player in the marketplace, such as by selling government owned land, but that is not even close to the idea that government should decide how it wants to influence the market and then should set about doing so.

Ownership of property, even real estate, is not static, permanent or immutable.  Not even for government.  The United States has owned more land in the past, and it has owned less land in the past.  You, seemingly, think that should not be a concern, despite the fact that it is a tremendous intrusion in the marketplace, and frequently results in government policies, or property use restrictions which, just like the one we are discussing, reduce the total benefit to society.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 18, 2011, 02:39:26 pm
 "Government certainly has the power to impose such use restrictions on leases from private property owners, or to require all owners of property to use the land instead of leaving it fallow, or to use the land for agricultural purposes instead of any other purpose, and even require that the crops are planted the first day of January each year."

Just out of curiosity, which part of the Constitution would give the Federal Government the power to require all owners of property to use the land?

"
Dave, you spent time in the military, so I will use a military example.  Saying that a military action should have as little effect as possible on civilian populations is meaningless, since the military, drawing its members from the civilian population and any military action, or for that matter inaction, therefore has an effect on the civilian population.  And, therefore, Dresden and Hiroshima are fine and not even worth discussing."

That goes beyond a stretch.  It is totally irrelivant.

Any landowner has the right to place whatever restrictions upon use by a leasee, and a potential leasee has the right, in fact the obligation to decide how much to pay for the lease, including it's restrictions.  If the government gives 5 year leases without right of renewal, it us up to potential leasees to decide whether or not to enter into such a lease.  The Federal government has no obligations to do what is "good" for society when deciding upon those restrictions.  Or more accurately, by it's action of putting those restrictions in the lease, they have made the decision that it is good for the society.  You may not agree with those restrictions, but have given no pursusive reasons why the particular restrictions would be bad for the country, the economy, or even for Jes.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on April 21, 2011, 01:02:43 pm
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

uh oh...protesters inside an Obam fundraiser. I guess the days of fainting upon seeing the messiah are over. I love the part where he didn't even recognize that it was a protest song.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 21, 2011, 02:46:18 pm
Key - did you see the segment on Fox the other day that was talking about the recent strong turnabout in real estate values in central and south Florida?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on April 21, 2011, 03:17:10 pm
No, I missed it. Would certainly be good news. It's been brutal where I live.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 22, 2011, 11:42:09 am
"Government certainly has the power to impose such use restrictions on leases from private property owners, or to require all owners of property to use the land instead of leaving it fallow, or to use the land for agricultural purposes instead of any other purpose, and even require that the crops are planted the first day of January each year."

Just out of curiosity, which part of the Constitution would give the Federal Government the power to require all owners of property to use the land?


Government is not limited to the federal government.

Any landowner has the right to place whatever restrictions upon use by a leasee, and a potential leasee has the right, in fact the obligation to decide how much to pay for the lease, including it's restrictions.

We have not disagreed about that point.  Our disagreement is over whether government SHOULD impose such restrictions on land it owns, whether such restrictions benefit society (they tend to be imposed either to create political talking points or to distort the cost benefit analysis of current use as opposed to future use in order to make current use more attractive, which will marginally lower current prices and marginally increase current employment, both helping the office holder at the moment, in part by eliminating from the table the question of whether society would benefit more by delaying extraction and use until some later date), and whether government should be owning and therefor absolutely controlling as much land as it does -- in many western states the Federal government owns more than 40% of all of the land in the state.

You write that I have given no reason to believe that having government decide how land is used is a mistake, specifically writing that I have "given no pursusive reasons why the particular restrictions would be bad for the country, the economy."

Do we really need to debate whether with regard to the use of land or other resources, the government is more or less likely to make good decisions regarding the use of land or other resources than the free market is likely to make good decisions?  Is that really something which needs debate?

If government can in fact be counted on to make better decisions, then by all means let's put more control of the economy in the hands of government.  Despite the fact that politicians routinely complain that the marketplace fails to adequately account for future needs and will not invest or conserve resources for future use, that criticism is actually far more applicable to government.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 22, 2011, 04:57:16 pm
"Government is not limited to the federal government."

In fact, Government is not restricted to the United States.

But we were talking about whether or not the United States Federal Government should take a specific action.  I believe that, as a property owner, the Government has the right to put their land to any use they wish, and right now I believe that increasing the output of oil from Federal land will benefit our society much more than the various alternative uses or non-uses of that land.

You said that the Federal Government should not do as I said because the Federal government should not do anything to affect the market.  But the fact that the action of the Federal Government in this instance will affect the market is irrelavent, since any action, or any lack of action, will affect the market.  Nor is there any way to tell at this point that the action of the Federal Government would have a greater affect on the market than no action whatsoever.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 22, 2011, 09:55:21 pm
right now I believe that increasing the output of oil from Federal land will benefit our society much more than the various alternative uses or non-uses of that land.

And "right now" you are a good socialist.  Now, you may well come to your senses tomorrow, but right now you believe it is best for government to control and determine how land, one of the most basic of resources and components of production, is used.

But the fact that the action of the Federal Government in this instance will affect the market is irrelavent, since any action, or any lack of action, will affect the market.

What government should do is as quickly as is practical get its ass OUT of the market so it does not distort it and so the free market is allowed to function.  Until that is accomplished, it should conduct itself as a property owner in the manner likely to alter the market decisions of others as little as possible.... which, in this case would mean having few to no restrictions on those leasing the property, at least regarding the timing of the extraction of any resources.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 23, 2011, 01:49:43 pm
Wrong.  I am making a recommendation on what a the Government should do with it's property.  The issue of whether or not the Government should own land might be a socialist question, but owning the land, the question of what to do with it is a legitimate policy decision.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: craig on April 24, 2011, 08:14:33 am
Jesus Christ is risen.  Heh, it's easter morning, and I have a week of crucifixion and resurrection passages and songs in my head and heart.  Love's redeeming work is done.

Easter morning, it's warm and bright and beautiful with springtime out here in Minnesota.  A reminder of the goodness of God's purposes and the new life that comes each spring and that is available through the redeeming promises and work of God. 

I don't visit the politics/religion board often.  But I'm grateful for all the diverse and interesting Bleacher Bums friends whose thoughts and humor and Cubs stuff and passions I get to share. 

I pray that many of you may already know the grace, forgiveness, and love of God.  Happy Easter everybody!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on April 24, 2011, 09:34:44 am
Great stuff Craig.  Thanks for sharing that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on April 24, 2011, 09:35:41 am
On second thought, leave the topic quick before Jesbeard breaks down your post and tries to convince you you didn't mean what you said you did.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on April 24, 2011, 09:58:55 am
Once again, Craig demonstrates that he is the BBF's most thoughtful and gentlemanly poster.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 24, 2011, 12:05:03 pm
Thank you for the post, Craig.  He is risen indeed.  Have a great day.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on April 27, 2011, 11:38:42 pm
They release the birth certificate, and nary a peep around here?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on April 28, 2011, 05:02:55 am
yawn... why now?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 28, 2011, 06:55:37 am
yawn... why now?

Because President Obama apparently went into office believing two and a half years into his presidency, there would be no vital issues whatsoever that needed to be addressed and it would still be OK for the birthers to distract everybody with this meaningless issue.

It's amazing to me that there are so many people who still portray Obama as being above the political fray when he does such obviously blatant political stuff like this.  The reason he withheld it so long was to keep the birther issue alive to make his opponents look like crazies.  If he wanted to keep the birther issue from ever being a needless distraction, this should have been done a long time ago, and he ought to be called out and criticized for that but obviously won't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on April 28, 2011, 08:49:41 am
I don't know...I think it's possible that Obama held back for the same reason Bush never responded to the ridiculous 9/11 truthers...because the nuts who really buy into these conspiracies aren't worth responding to.  I mean, if he was going to hold back for political reasons, why not wait until next August or September when he could marginalize his opponents just before the election?

Obama probably should've continued ignoring them.  Beerfan will show up here in the next couple of days and show us why releasing the birth certificate was a waste of time.  He'll have rationalized it somehow and will point out "flaws" in the birth certificate that was released, concluding that it was a Photoshop forgery.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on April 28, 2011, 09:13:56 am
At this point it doesn't matter if he was born on Mars - he has not been very good at his job so far
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 28, 2011, 09:15:49 am
Obama took a page out of the Clinton play book.  Let the nuts scream about something that most people consider to be completely unrelated to the presidency.  When someone not considered to be on the fringe of society finally called for it's release, he released it.  In the meantime, millions of dollars that could have been spent publicizing Obama's horrible policies have been wasted on something the general public considers irrelevant at best and idiotic at worst.

And as said above, the Beerfan's of the world will still find fault with it and claim that it is a forgery.  The first one I saw was the claim that the certificate should read "negro" rather than "African".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on April 28, 2011, 10:39:43 am
He clearly released it now to avoid any distractions during his very important interview with Oprah.  Got to get your priorities straight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on April 28, 2011, 10:46:20 am
And then he's headed to Cape Canaveral to see the last shuttle launch - because Gabby's husband is on the crew?

Maybe he will console all of the soon-to-be unemployed scientists and engineers - they could have a dangerous job like the politicians have
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2011, 11:04:03 am
Because President Obama apparently went into office believing two and a half years into his presidency, there would be no vital issues whatsoever that needed to be addressed and it would still be OK for the birthers to distract everybody with this meaningless issue.

It's amazing to me that there are so many people who still portray Obama as being above the political fray when he does such obviously blatant political stuff like this.  The reason he withheld it so long was to keep the birther issue alive to make his opponents look like crazies.  If he wanted to keep the birther issue from ever being a needless distraction, this should have been done a long time ago, and he ought to be called out and criticized for that but obviously won't.

BINGO!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 29, 2011, 11:11:15 am
In the meantime, millions of dollars that could have been spent publicizing Obama's horrible policies have been wasted on something the general public considers irrelevant at best and idiotic at worst.

Give me a break.   Who spent "millions of dollars" publicizing anything?  As I have mentioned in the past, it is not as if the RNC was running TV adds on this, or Boehner was having his focus taken off legislative issues to gin up interest in the birth certificate.  The interest and any activity on the issue either came from folks who otherwise would not have been active in any meaningful political manner (other than carping about Obama with their friends), or from folks like those at wnd.com or Jerome Corsi who are promoting his book, "Where's the Birth Certificate" and money spent was simply promoting what they were selling.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 30, 2011, 08:43:59 am
Dozens of lawsuits have been instituted over the country.  You should know that awsuits are not cheap.  And the amount of time and effort wasted exceeds the amount of money wasted.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 01, 2011, 07:57:24 am
Well, it had to happen.  Superman is no longer an American.

Truth, Justice, and the Liberal Way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 01, 2011, 01:23:34 pm
Michele Brachman was on Fox News Sunday today.  It is the first time I have heard her in other than a few recorded sound bites.

I was quite impressed.  She handled some extremely difficult and complex questions very adroitly.  Perhaps her ignorance of Revolutionary history is compensated by her expertise in current affairs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 01, 2011, 09:03:28 pm
Dozens of lawsuits have been instituted over the country.  You should know that awsuits are not cheap.  And the amount of time and effort wasted exceeds the amount of money wasted.

Dave, most of those lawsuits have been brought by the legendarily incompetent Orly Taitz.  (I am serious about the following -- the woman has NEVER tried a case to a jury.  She has never tried a case AT ALL, other than the Obama cases, none of which have ever reached the merits.  She has never won a case of any kind in court.)  The plaintiffs have NOT spent great sums of money on this, and it has principally involved the attention of bloggers who were not going to be doing anything of any value otherwise.


Michele Brachman was on Fox News Sunday today.  It is the first time I have heard her in other than a few recorded sound bites.

I was quite impressed.  She handled some extremely difficult and complex questions very adroitly.  Perhaps her ignorance of Revolutionary history is compensated by her expertise in current affairs.

You apparently are impressed more easily than I am.  I watched the same interview and my opinion was not changed.... though I will admit that my opinion of her was so low to start with, it may have left her in a hole she could not (in my mind) climb out of.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on May 01, 2011, 09:54:36 pm
Usama bin Laden is dead.

When did he become Usama again?  What happened to Osama?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on May 01, 2011, 09:58:09 pm
Rot in Hell, you steaming turd.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on May 01, 2011, 09:58:17 pm
Nevermind, I just answered my own question.  Osama looks too much like Obama and it might have confused people reading the television and caused a panic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 01, 2011, 10:22:01 pm
Good-bye and good riddance
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 07:08:10 am
Monday morning quarterbacking:

Is it significant that he was killed by American forces without Pakistani help?

Is it significant that Pakistan with one of the most thorough and feared intelligence networks in the world couldn't find a guy hiding in a mansion?

Is it significant that we knew where he was since October but we didn't order his demise until the President's rating was at an all time low?

How long will it be before our enemies claim he's really alive and we got the wrong guy?

Who's the devil we don't know that will now take over the network?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 02, 2011, 07:44:55 am
You only know what your govt wants you to know...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Tom Hudson on May 02, 2011, 08:13:00 am
Is it significant that we knew where he was since October but we didn't order his demise until the President's rating was at an all time low? (Curt)

I normally avoid the Politics & Religion forum.  I decided to visit it today to see whether anyone managed to find a way of turning Osama Bin Ladin's death into a way to criticize Obama.  Realizing that the irrationality of some Obama haters knows no bounds,  I figured someone here would find a way, even though it would take some exceptional mental gymnastics.


Sure enough, the first attempt has been posted. I admit I didn't expect it come from Curt, though.


Not that it will make any difference, but here are some facts that were ignored in this post.


First, it was not known that Bin Ladin was at this location last October.  That's when attention focused on the building, based on a courier being tracked to there.  There was a suspicion that a major leader was there, and since that time, American intelligence forces conducting substantial monitoring operations.  See below from the NY Times.

Still, it was not until August when they tracked him to the coumpound in Abbotabad, a medium-sized city about an hour's drive north of Islamabad, the capital.

C.I.A. analysts spent the next several weeks examining satellite photos and intelligence reports to determine who might be living at the compound, and a senior administration official said that by September the C.I.A. had determined there was a "strong possibility" that Bin Laden himself was hiding there.

...

Months more of intelligence work would follow before American spies felt highly confident that it was indeed Bin Laden and his family who were hiding in there - and before President Obama determined that the intelligence was solid enough to begin planning a mission to go after the Qaeda leader.

On March 14, Mr. Obama held the first of what would be five national security meetings in the course of the next six eeks to go over plans for the operation.

Secondly, Obama's poll numbers were actually lower in October/November than currently. You can check the Real Clear Politics site for a graph showing this.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)


Not that such facts will make any difference.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 08:20:16 am
Tom, I'm skeptical of all politicians.  I would have asked the same question if this had happened during Bush's second term when his poll numbers were in the toilet.

More importantly, of all the questions I asked, the one about the President was the least important.  Actually, I thought our President acquitted himself quite well on television regarding this event last night.

Paranoia does not become you.  :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Tom Hudson on May 02, 2011, 08:41:55 am
I'm not the one who is paranoid.  You wrote what you wrote. 


It was based on two specific allegations that were false.  If you care about being accurate, you really ought to address that.  People make mistakes (for whatever reason).  If your suspicions about Obama were based on honest mistakes, it would be good for you to acknowledge those and perhaps to apologize for spreading such stuff. 



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 08:48:33 am
LOL  I wrote a question.  A Question.  How can a question be accurate or inaccurate?  Only the answers can be be.  You have responded to it quite well.  Thank you for your response.

Perhaps skepticism and paranoia are second cousins.  If so, I confess guilt.

Again, the other questions were far more important, because they dig deeper at questions about our allies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 02, 2011, 09:17:56 am
What is the proper relationship between "justice" and "revenge"?  Is revenge a justifiable goal in itself?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 09:25:23 am
The banners at both FOX and CNN proclaimed "JUSTICE" so it must be so, P2.  If killing the guilty is justice, why do we tell vigilantes that they are wrong?  Never figured that one out.  I thought justice entailed some portion of the legal system.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 02, 2011, 09:32:46 am
I wonder positioning Panetta as the head man was instrumental in the final result...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 10:40:33 am
Tom, evidently CNN has an agenda too.  Check #6

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/7-questions-on-the-death-of-bin-laden/?hpt=T2
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 02, 2011, 10:40:36 am
Reuters is reporting that the mission was to kill and not to capture bin Laden.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502

What does everyone think of that?  I guess it makes it a whole lot simpler for everyone to go ahead and take him out.  It saves all of the media hysteria of bringing him to this country alive, and it solves complicated problems like whether to put him to trial or where to put him.  It probably is better that we just move on with our lives after the euphoria of taking him out dies down in a week or two instead of dealing with a year long or two year long debate on what to do with him.

Still, it does seem maybe at least a little bothersome to me if we did have no intention of apprehending him alive.  As evil as bin Laden was, is it right to just kill him if we had just seen him sitting around eating dinner, for example?  Is vigilante justice the way to handle something like this?  Would there have been some value in interrogating him?  And honestly even with the media hysterics and the awful political debate that would follow bringing him in alive, there's part of me that would have liked to have seen him subjected to all the pain and anger he caused in this country before we fried him.       

I'm sure these were just a few of the ethical/moral questions that were debated before the decision was made to make it a kill mission, and at least in the interests of the country, the right decision was almost certainly made.  Still, is making something like this an outright kill mission the ethical/moral thing to do?  It honestly may have been given what would have happened if he was captured alive.  I think whatever debates there may have been on the subject would have been at least interesting to listen to.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 10:43:01 am
I was thinking that if we had captured him alive, we could have still buried him at sea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 02, 2011, 10:43:44 am
I was thinking that if we had captured him alive, we could have still buried him at sea.

LOL!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 02, 2011, 10:56:12 am
I'm sure he could have been rehabilitated into a nice basket-weaving philanthropist...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 02, 2011, 11:10:05 am
As to the questions presented by Curt and Tom's subsequent assault on Curt another question did come to mind. Why would Tom who admittedly avoids the politics thread suddenly have a desire to see if someone would criticize Obama? I think he had an agenda already and was hoping to find something to latch on to and stir the pot. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 02, 2011, 11:20:21 am
Everyone has Assaulting Curt on their agenda...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 11:49:59 am
The irony is, I think Obama was very eloquent in his tv appearance late last night.  I think he did the right thing, polls or no polls.  My biggest concern is that some al qaeda crackpot may try to do something to the head guy as vengeance now.  I'd rather have had Hillary or Panetta make the announcement.   But that's just me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 11:53:30 am
Everyone has Assaulting Curt on their agenda...

Particularly Mrs. CurtOne.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2011, 12:09:58 pm

Is it significant that he was killed by American forces without Pakistani help?

Is it significant that Pakistan with one of the most thorough and feared intelligence networks in the world couldn't find a guy hiding in a mansion?

Is it significant that we knew where he was since October but we didn't order his demise until the President's rating was at an all time low?

Yes, it is significant we did not involve the Pakistanis.  It is also significant that this was essentially a Presidentially ordered murder.  The orders were NOT to capture.  They were to kill.

I think it is a mistaken assumption to believe that the Pakistanis could not (or DID not) know where bin Laden was.  I suspect many in the Pakistani intelligence community did know.

As to the timing of the operation.....  Nah, Obama wouldn't do anything like that.  How could you even wonder such a thing?

One question I have about this is how they performed the supposed DNA testing of bin Laden so quickly.  To the best of my knowledge, it is impossible to complete such testing in just a few hours, which is all that was involved between the time we killed him and the time we announced his death.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2011, 12:15:12 pm
Still, is making something like this an outright kill mission the ethical/moral thing to do?  It honestly may have been given what would have happened if he was captured alive. 

The effort should have been capture.  The outcome may have been exactly the same, and I will not shed a tear for him either way, but I do shed a tear for the Constitution, for the 5th Amendment seems to have suffered a bit here.  Order a capture, and if he resists and is killed in the process of taking him prisoner, fine.  But he was "shot in the head," and I wonder from what range.  Of course, by disposing of him at sea, it is assured no one will ever know.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 02, 2011, 12:32:03 pm
If you are #1 on the FBI's most wanted list of bad guys - Dead or Alive is probably standard protocol
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on May 02, 2011, 12:38:32 pm
Donald Trump wants to see the death certificate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 12:39:11 pm
Blast it, Cactus, you beat me to it.  LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2011, 12:41:46 pm
If you are #1 on the FBI's most wanted list of bad guys - Dead or Alive is probably standard protocol

Not only is it NOT standard protocol, the directions were not "Dead or Alive."  The directions were that they were to bring him back dead.  It made no difference whether he resisted, was unarmed or was captured in his sleep.  The orders were simply to kill him, or at least that is how it is being reported, and also what Obama and Holder both several months ago said would be the US approach with bin Laden.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 02, 2011, 01:13:07 pm
Only a few members of Seal Team 6 know what the real order was
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2011, 02:27:08 pm
So?

If the commander of the unit knows the "real order" and directs the team accordingly, that is all that is needed.  I am not faulting the Seal team at all, nor would I fault the commander of the unit if he carried out his orders.  The decision to make it a "kill" operation instead of a "capture" operation was made several steps above the commander of that unit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on May 02, 2011, 03:22:56 pm
The bait is so tantilizing but I will not bite!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Chris27 on May 02, 2011, 05:12:26 pm
A bit of a breakdown on the DNA process that would've been used for bin Laden.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110502/us_ac/8407767_how_dna_testing_confirmed_osama_bin_ladens_death

With hundreds of relatives, you'd think they'd use the most expansive test to be certain of identification. That kind of testing takes weeks, however.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Chris27 on May 02, 2011, 05:20:19 pm
There seem to be conflicting reports on whether the mission was to kill bin Laden. Several outlets are claiming he was to be arrested if possible. I knew I heard last night that he was given the option of surrender before refusing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 02, 2011, 05:29:54 pm
The current reports are that he was unarmed when he was shot to death.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Chris27 on May 02, 2011, 05:40:17 pm
I haven't seen those, but I'll take you word for it.

There are still conflicting reports on this and other details, probably ones we'll never know for sure.


Reuters’ Mark Hosenball is reporting that the U.S. special forces that raided Osama bin Laden’s compound Sunday were under orders to kill the terrorist leader, not capture him. But an administration official tells TIME that the report is not accurate.

...


UPDATE 2:04 p.m.: As expected, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan confirmed that this was not a kill-only mission at the White House briefing. ” We certainly were planning for the possibility, which we thought was going to be remote,” Brennan said of capturing Bin Laden alive. ” If we had the opportunity to take him alive we would have done that.”



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/official-bin-laden-mission-was-kill-or-capture-not-just-kill/#ixzz1LEmxcAIM


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 06:17:12 pm
Cement overshoes was the best option.  The media circus of a trial; the costs of a trial; the terrorist pr of a trial.  This was for the best.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on May 02, 2011, 07:22:34 pm
The coward apparently used one of his wives as a human shield.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2011, 07:41:45 pm
Has that been identified as bin Laden, East?  Early reports were it was one of the others, I thought.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on May 03, 2011, 06:32:28 am
This is where I read that, Curt:

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday that U.S. military operatives were prepared to capture Osama bin Laden alive but were "absolutely" ready to kill him when he fought back.

"If we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that," Brennan said during an uncharacteristically candid exchange with reporters at a White House briefing.

Intelligence officials and Obama “extensively” discussed the prospect of capturing bin Laden alive during the U.S. military raid on his compound Sunday, Brennan said, but were “certainly were planning for the possibility … that he would likely resist arrest.” In the end, the al Qaeda leader fought back and was “therefore killed in a fire fight,” Brennan said.

The bottom line, said Brennan, was that “we were not going to put our people at risk.”

Brennan painted a dark scene of bin Laden's final moments. He said the al Qaeda leader used one of his wives as a human shield while he was being shot at. “From a visual perspective, here is bin Laden ... living in this million dollar-plus compound ... hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield. I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years," Brennan said. "Looking at what bin Laden was doing hiding there while he’s putting other people out there to carry out attacks again just speaks to, I think, the nature of the individual he was."

Brennan declined to say whether bin Laden went down shooting, but an AP report cites an official familiar with the military operation indicating that bin Laden fired on U.S. forces.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 03, 2011, 06:41:46 am
Thanks, East.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2011, 06:44:02 am
bin Laden was shot to death when he had no weapon, and he had not had a weapon before he was shot to death.

To Brennan, I have only one thing to say -- Don't p*ss down my neck and tell me it's rainin'.

But, I can't resist one more comment about Brennan.  He said, "Looking at what bin Laden was doing hiding there while he’s putting other people out there to carry out attacks again just speaks to, I think, the nature of the individual he was."

Presidents in this country are Commanders in Chief of our armed forces, meaning they are "putting other people out there to carry out attacks," and when they do so they are not exactly out on the front line, but instead in very secure locations, with lots of other people around them to keep them safe, people who are even quite literally willing to give their lives to save the President.

Brennan's comment would be equally applicable to virtually any leader of military troops during modern warfare, and it certainly would be applicable of the last three presidents, none of whom saw combat and two of whom took deliberate steps to reduce the chance they ever would.

I am not trying to glamorize bin Laden in any way -- the guy was human trash.  But the specific manner in which Brennan was trying to belittle bin Laden was equally applicable to Brennan's boss, and to Brennan himself, watching what was going on from the security of the White House situation room.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on May 03, 2011, 06:57:24 am
Yeah, I am so sick of US presidents urging Americans to martyr themselves.

By the way, Curt, sounds like the story I read has been superseded:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 03, 2011, 07:53:17 am
We'll never know what really happened
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2011, 08:05:42 am
Yeah, I am so sick of US presidents urging Americans to martyr themselves.

But that was not among the things Brennan was criticizing.  All of the things Brennan was criticizing would apply to virtually every military leader during the era of modern warfare.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 03, 2011, 08:21:55 am
"What is the proper relationship between "justice" and "revenge"?  Is revenge a justifiable goal in itself?"

Yes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 03, 2011, 08:28:29 am
"What is the proper relationship between "justice" and "revenge"?  Is revenge a justifiable goal in itself?"

Yes.

My own feeling is that revenge for the sake of revenge is a terrible human instinct.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 03, 2011, 08:33:11 am
My own feeling is that revenge for the sake of revenge is a terrible human instinct.

I'm going to get you for saying that!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2011, 09:31:09 am
My own feeling is that revenge for the sake of revenge is a terrible human instinct.

I don't know.... isn't it a basic tenet of Christianity?

Perhaps I am confused....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 03, 2011, 12:42:28 pm
"Eye for an eye".  An awful concept.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2011, 01:12:28 pm
It's a concept which leads to a lot of blind people, and it is a concept which is not expressed at all in the New Testament.  Nothing wrong with embracing the Old Testament and ignoring the New Testament.  Millions of Jews do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 03, 2011, 01:41:52 pm
"Eye for an eye".  An awful concept.

Especially if you happen to be a cyclops.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 04, 2011, 11:02:51 am
I'm sure Pakistan was complicit in some of the hiding of OBL, but I've given this some thought...

If OBL had somehow gotten to the US, put in the back of a semi, transferred in some Rest Area to a Tahoe with dark windows, driven to my neighborhood into my neighbor's garage, where he disembarked...

never to go on the internet, make a phone call, cell or regular, never looked out the window, went outside, but had his whole life run by couriers bringing him news and taking out his orders...

would I know he was there?  Probably not.  In that respect, maybe we're being too hard on Pakistan.  I'm sure that a) somebody in the government helped him initially, if not all along, and b) somebody should have wondered who was living in this new compound with concertina wire and big tall walls, especially local police and officials.

c) if my neighbor suddenly built big walls with concertina wire, I'd certainly express some curiosity, enough so that more questions would be asked.

I am surprised that he wasn't surrounded by more loyal guards and supporters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2011, 12:26:01 pm
The problem with the speculation and second guessing that you see on ALL the media channels is that many of the speculators? are speaking out of sheer ignorance.

One of the things they are harping on was the fact that the compound was so out of place in that neighborhood that it should have been obvious that something was going on there.

In 1986 I was purchasing spices for a company called Griffith Laboratories.  At that time I traveled to Pakistan to visit the various growers and suppliers of red pepper, at that time a large export crop in Pakistan.  We went to about 15 processors around the country, and as part of the visit, each of them took me to their "country house", which was, at least from the outside, identical to the compound that contained Osama - a fort like four or more walls enclosing a house, servant's house, gardens, etc.  Each of those were located in the middle of an extremely poor village or neighborhood, and stood out from the rest, to me at least, like a sore thumb.  There are thousands and thousands of these located throughout not only Pakistan, but also northern India and Afghanistan.

As Curt points out above, there was little or no reason for the neighbors or anyone else to have strong suspicions that there were terrorists in the compound, let alone the head terrorist.

In hindsight, it is easy to make a point that someone "should have known" that he was there.  But hindsight is merely a way for foolish people to look smart.  Now a way to shed light on a situation.

That said, it is known that the Pakistani intelligence agency has quite a few terrorist sympathizers in it, as does the country as a whole.  It seems likely that some of them knew what was going on, and were actively helping him.  We know that because when Clinton bombed the training camp in 1998, he did the "proper" thing and let the Pakistani government know in advance that he was doing it.  Someone warned Osama, and he was able to get out before the bombs came.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2011, 12:28:48 pm
Even more foolish is the current claims that the Seals should have taken the injured wife of Osama with them when they left.

An operation like this is planned out to the least detail, and they are sent in to accomplish specific tasks, and nothing else.  The reason why it was so successful was because the mission was kept extremely simple and focused.  The last thing they needed was to have responsibility of bringing along a screaming, injured woman.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on May 04, 2011, 12:38:45 pm
S P I C E S... righhhhhttttttt...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 04, 2011, 01:53:58 pm
Did those spice merchants have barbed wire at the top of their high walls?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on May 04, 2011, 02:00:29 pm
Has anyone ever seen Beerfan and Luke Scott in the same place?

Quote from: Luke Scott
(President Obama’s) birth certificate has yet to be validated … If they can counterfeit $100 bills, I think it’s a million times easier to counterfeit a birth certificate, if you ask me. So, all it is, let’s just see if it’s real. Anybody can produce a document, so let’s check it out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 04, 2011, 02:01:15 pm
Sheesh . . .
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 04, 2011, 02:01:52 pm
This hasn't been a good week for pro athletes and their views on current events.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: mO on May 04, 2011, 03:04:38 pm
More Luke Scott:

http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/04/23/orioles-luke-scott-throws-banana-chips-at-dominican-teammate-to-remind-him-to-not-be-a-savage/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 04, 2011, 03:15:14 pm
Why couldn't we have traded for him when we had Milton Bradley.  We could have made the soap opera go gold!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2011, 03:32:17 pm
From the Luke Scott article: n a profile by ESPN that revealed the fact that Scott is proud to say that he legitimately believes that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States, Scott also added as an addendum that his friendship with fellow outfielder Felix Pie involves throwing banana chips at Pie when he think she’s acting like an ‘animal’ or a ‘savage’,

The writer is actually more amusing than Scott.

The writer essentially tries to ridicule Scott for believing something which roughly half of the country believed, and by suggesting that Scott is racist for doing something which would be ignored if Pie were white.  Unless there is some reason to believe that Scott would not do the same thing with Pie if Pie were behaving the same way but with skin several shades lighter, the racist would not seem to be Scott, but the writer.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2011, 05:37:41 pm
"Did those spice merchants have barbed wire at the top of their high walls?"

They did not, but your question got me curious, and I just called a friend still in the spice business who goes there every year.  He says that for the past 10 years, just about all private (country houses) have not only barbed wire, but also armed guards.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 04, 2011, 06:18:01 pm
Those must be really good spices.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 08, 2011, 09:14:15 pm
Fox News is playing a documentary of 9 - 11.

I hope that bastard suffered a bit before he died.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 12, 2011, 07:54:13 pm
Romney seems intend upon destroying his chances to win the Republican nomination.  Today he defended Romney care in Massachusetts, even though the mandate there is poison to many conservatives.

Too bad.  As of now, he seems to be the least objectionable of the potential candidates.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 12, 2011, 08:03:08 pm
I think Mitch Daniels is looking more and more like my guy if he decides to run.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2011, 08:16:42 pm
Romney's defense of the Massachusetts approach will bury him with the Tea Party crowd, which is likely to represent a new level of grassroots activism in the Republican primaries next year.

At this point I actually think the guy who may have the best shot is Ron Paul, who I think would beat Obama.

JR, Daniels has a big problem in that he was the chief budget bean counter under Bush at a time when the beans were being counted remarkably poorly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 12, 2011, 08:29:41 pm
I don't agree, Jes.  Paul's views on foreign affairs are so loony that not even a lot of the tea partiers will take him seriously.

But the field is extremely poor.  Pawelenty is probably the best from a conservative viewpoint, but he is also extremely unexciting.  Gingrich is a fraud and Trump is a joke, and not even a republican joke.  I would like to see the country to get behind Sanctorum, but it will be difficult to explain why he could not even win his own state.

Cain seems to be interesting, but his name recognition is somewhat less than that of CurtOne.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 12, 2011, 08:40:44 pm
In the words of Donald Trump, **** you, Dave.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 12, 2011, 08:41:13 pm
BTW, is Sanctorum a Freudian slip?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 12, 2011, 08:44:36 pm
Ron Paul just blew his chances today by saying he wouldn't have gone in after Bin Laden but would have tried to negotiate with Pakistan to have them turn him over.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2011, 08:50:59 pm
I don't agree, Jes.  Paul's views on foreign affairs are so loony that not even a lot of the tea partiers will take him seriously.

Paul's view at the moment is to declare victory and bring the troops home.  I don't think that sounds loony to too many people right now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 12, 2011, 08:55:12 pm
Since the 1976 election, the more handsome and generally physically attractive candidate has won the presidency.

Obama > McCain
Bush > Kerry
Bush > Gore
Clinton > Dole
Clinton > Bush
Bush = Dukakis (equally ugly); for the tiebreaker, go to the VPs - Quayle > Bentsen
Reagan > Mondale
Reagan > Carter
Carter > Ford

Talk all you want about policy, but, in the modern TV era, the pretty boy (well, the prettier boy) wins.

If the Republicans want to beat Obama, they'll have to nominate some eye candy that the men want to be and the women want to be with.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 12, 2011, 08:56:53 pm
If the Republicans want to beat Obama, they'll have to nominate some eye candy that the men want to be and the women want to be with.

So this rules out DaveP then.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 12, 2011, 09:00:02 pm
So this rules out DaveP then.

It actually rules out the entire male population of the Bleacher Bums Forum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 12, 2011, 09:00:06 pm
I refuse the nomination.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 12, 2011, 09:04:10 pm
The only one better lookin' than Obama is Palin, and I wouldn't put my money on that happenin.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 12, 2011, 09:45:18 pm
I think it will sound loony to a lot of the people that must vote for him in order for him to be the Republican  nominee.

The United States is far beyond the time we can pretend the rest of the world does not exist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 12, 2011, 09:51:27 pm
I would have said Santorum, but I was trying to reach the Missouri synod voters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2011, 10:40:19 pm
Dave, we are doing an awful lot of pretending when we imagine that we can afford the military presence we maintain over the world, and when we imagine that the folks in the areas where we send troops are not going to have any meaningful reaction to their presence.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 12, 2011, 11:27:40 pm
We should not have gone into Libya, and we should remove most of our troops from Europe and some from Iraq, but if we stop the ridiculous domestic bailouts, social engineering and make rational programs out of Social Security and Medicare, we can fight all the wars we want to, at least from a financial point of view.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 13, 2011, 03:34:57 pm
I think you can scratch Mitch Daniels...the media would be relentless.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/13/getting_to_yes_for_the_danielses_109852-2.html

The glaring reason for the family's hesitation is a 1990s gap in the couple's marriage, when Mrs. Daniels divorced the now-governor and fled to California with a doctor, who was married at the time. Mrs. Daniels returned to Indiana several years later and remarried Mitch. It has long been assumed that the experience is a painful one for the couple that they do not like speaking about publicly.

But it may be less about the questions awaiting the Danielses in a nationally televised interview, which they undoubtedly will have to do if he runs. Instead, the concern may revolve more around others who were affected by the situation.

According to those familiar with the details from more than a decade ago, Mrs. Daniels' decision to end her first marriage and leave Indiana with another woman's husband hurt several other people, some of them children. The cross-country move blindsided the doctor's then-spouse, sources said, breaking up that marriage and that family.

It's long in the past now, and those involved in this drama say they have moved on, but the intensely personal nature of that episode -- and the questions that will inevitably be asked about it if Mitch Daniels decides to run -- clearly have left him and his family torn.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2011, 03:39:26 pm
Ron Paul just blew his chances today by saying he wouldn't have gone in after Bin Laden but would have tried to negotiate with Pakistan to have them turn him over.

Any link you could direct to on this?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 13, 2011, 03:46:18 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20062264-503544.html

here you go Jes
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 13, 2011, 04:39:14 pm
Keys, now what exactly do you have a problem with in Paul's response, which was essentially that he would have followed the law?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 13, 2011, 10:06:55 pm
I have no idea what Key's answer would be, but the last thing I would have done would be to let the Pakistani government know that they knew where Obama was.  He would have been warned, just as he was warned when Clinton warned the pakistani government that he was going to bomb the terrorist training camp.

Just because you are a conservative doesn't mean you have to be stupid.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 14, 2011, 01:32:11 am
I have no idea what Key's answer would be, but the last thing I would have done would be to let the Pakistani government know that they knew where Obama was.  He would have been warned, just as he was warned when Clinton warned the pakistani government that he was going to bomb the terrorist training camp.

Just because you are a conservative doesn't mean you have to be stupid.
But it helps.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2011, 07:01:53 am
I have no idea what Key's answer would be, but the last thing I would have done would be to let the Pakistani government know that they knew where Obama was.  He would have been warned, just as he was warned when Clinton warned the pakistani government that he was going to bomb the terrorist training camp.  Just because you are a conservative doesn't mean you have to be stupid.

It also doesn't mean you get to violate international law... nor does being a liberal, since Obama was the one doing the violating here.

Whether bin Laden would have been warned or not does not alter the law.  When Al Capone had informants on his payroll all over Chicago at all levels of government, that did not mean officers could ignore the search warrant requirements and search whatever and whenever they wanted.

The US could have had the mission in place, and fully planned and ready to go, with Obama scheduling a phone call directly with Pakistan's President to inform him that the US was preparing to go in after bin Laden, and wanting the approval for that mission, and wanting it right then, that instant, with any and all aid cut off if it was not granted.  Meanwhile an operative on the ground outside of the compound could have watched to see if anyone left before the Seals arrived.  Or some other approach accomplishing the same end could have been used.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 14, 2011, 09:03:01 am


Jes...I don't have a problem going in to get Bin laden but that was not the point of my post. I understand your argument about violating international law but I think think the majority of voters would not agree with you with the exception of the far left who would never vote for Ron Paul under any circumstances. My point was that making that statement would make him unelectable and I stand by it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2011, 10:28:27 am
And I disagree that it will make him unelectable.  The terrorism buggaboo is unlikely to be much of an issue at all in 2012.  The Republican candidates are unlikely to press it because it does not rate nearly as high with voters as the economy and deficit, and because Obama got Osama, AND because the likely attack on Obama will be for being too adventerous with the military, and not bringing troops home fast enough, which is not an argument which will play well while raising concerns about terrorism.  And Obama is not going to push it, because it runs counter to his base and it is not his nature.  What Paul would or would not have done regarding Osama will be of about as much concern to most voters next year as how he would change a flat tire.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 14, 2011, 10:46:32 am
All an opponant has to say is that if Paul had been in charge Bin Laden would still be alive plotting future terror attacks. I think that does more damage to him than you think.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 14, 2011, 01:49:25 pm
"t also doesn't mean you get to violate international law... nor does being a liberal, since Obama was the one doing the violating here."

If a foreign country protects a terrorist that has wreaked destruction in America, I could care less about criminal international law.  When Tunisia gave safe harbor to pirates, Jefferson went in after them.  It was the right thing to do.  When Cambodia gave safe harbor to the Viet Cong, we went after them.  It was the right thing to do.  When Pakistan gives safe harbor to the Taliban, we go after them.  It is the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2011, 03:08:26 pm
Dave, while I know none of this is going to change your opinion, safe harbor to tens of thousands of troops in the middle of a shooting war is not quite the same as safe harbor to an individual, who may have been hiding from the Pakistan government every bit as much as from the US, during a non-existent "war."  As to Jefferson, Jefferson did NOT send US troops in to Tunisia to get the pirates.  He sent naval forces to the Mediterranean with instructions to protect US merchant ships and to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them, but not to "go after" the pirates. Additionally, Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, who also governed Tunisia, declared war on the United States in May 1801, before Jefferson sent any forces in that direction.  http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html

If we had evidence Pakistan was in fact providing "safe harbor," your position might at least have an initial premise, even if I disagreed with your position, but there is no real evidence which has been reported which indicates Pakistan was doing that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 14, 2011, 04:18:06 pm
I think what makes Ron Paul unelectable in addition to his foreign policy is his whiny little voice.  America just won't elect someone who they are going to want to punch after hearing him speak for less than 2 minutes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 14, 2011, 08:23:07 pm
Jes - contrary to the premise of the author, the conflict in Tunis has a large number of parallels to the situation in Pakistan, although he tries his best to avoid mentioning them.

He ignores the fact that the Pasha of Tripoli was in charge of a small province of the Turkish Empire, and that the Pasha had no more legal right to declare war on the United States than the Governor of Michigan has to declare war on Canada.  The Turkish Empire did NOT declare war on the US, nor did the US declare the war on it.  In fact, the US did not even bother to declare war on Tripoli.  They DID, however, authorize the fleet to conduct whatever necessary operations ON SEA AND ON LAND to protect US citizens and interests, even in the absence of a declaration of war. 

At that point in history, the Turkish Empire had little control over it's provences, just as Pakistan has little control over much of it's own territory.  When Osama declared a fatwa against the US, the US did not bother to declare war on him, but merely took it's own action when the government who had jurisdiction over him either was unable or unwilling to take it's own action.

The first responsibility of any government is to protect its borders and citizens.  If it can do this through diplomacy, that is wonderful.  But when diplomacy does not work, it is necessary to take whatever reasonable measures to protect it's borders or citizens.  What they did was appropriate in every respect.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2011, 08:32:54 pm
So, since the US is not doing a very good job of maintaining its southern border, and since the federal government does not really control the states, I suppose it would be okay, by that reasoning, for another nation to act similarly toward whomever that nation might decide was their equivalent of bin Laden.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2011, 08:52:37 pm
As to there having been no declaration of war, even if we ignore the fact that the Pasha declared war on the US, the US did declare war on the "regency of Tripoli, on the coast of Barbary, (which had) commenced a predatory warfare against the United States.... (stating that) the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, (authorized the President) to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas....  (I)t shall be lawful for the President of the United States to instruct the commanders of the respective public vessels aforesaid, to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects, and to bring or send the same into port, to be proceeded against, and distributed according to law; and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require."  http://www.warpower.us/1802_barbarypirates.htm

That "state of war" language would seem to me to constitute a declaration of war.  But the authorization, despite your contention that it authorization actions on land, and despite the fact that operations in fact took place on land.... in fact included no such authorization, and the word "land" appears nowhere in the authorization.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 14, 2011, 09:20:55 pm
"So, since the US is not doing a very good job of maintaining its southern border, and since the federal government does not really control the states, I suppose it would be okay, by that reasoning, for another nation to act similarly toward whomever that nation might decide was their equivalent of bin Laden.

If there were terrorists in southern Arizona that were conducting terror raids into Mexico, and the US government refused to do anything about it, I would certainly expect Mexico to come over the border to eliminate them.  And I would have no problem with it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 14, 2011, 09:21:35 pm
Huckabee announced he isn't running.  Interesting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 14, 2011, 09:35:24 pm
Good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 14, 2011, 09:40:33 pm
You might not, but that exact border issue was a very serious one when in the late 1800's and early 1900's bandit groups were operating along the border and moving from one country to the other to evade capture, and even earlier when native Americans such as the Apache and the Yaqui were doing the same.  Both Mexico and the U.S. were quite hostile toward the idea of troops from another nation, even a border nation in hot pursuit, entering their territory to get the perceived bad guys.  The idea that the U.S. today would "have no problem with it" is not at all realistic.... even if you personally would not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 14, 2011, 09:48:39 pm
You asked me my opinion, not the opinion of others.  As I said, I would not have problem with mexican troops coming over the border after terrorists that were hitting their citizens from the sanctuary of our southern border, just as I would have had no problem with Mexican troops chasing Apaches into our territory.

Back in the 1880s the Fienians gathered in the northern US in preparation for an invasion of Canada.  We stopped them.  If we hadn't, Canada would have had every right to do so on their own, just as the Israelis should be flattening the ground where the Palistinians shoot missles into Israel today.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 17, 2011, 09:46:08 pm
The ratings for cable news programs are out for April.  The top 11 rated shows are all from Fox News Channel.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 17, 2011, 09:52:00 pm
Dave, aren't you fired up that Tommy Thompson is going to run for Wisconsin Senator? 

Got to respect a guy who only runs when he's not a clear underdog.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 17, 2011, 10:32:57 pm
I wrote Thompson off when he didn't run in 2008, when he could have kept the Senate Republican.  I no longer vote in Wisconsin, but if I did, it would have been for Neuman.

Thompson is as bad as Lindsey Graham.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 17, 2011, 10:40:20 pm
Alfred E.?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 17, 2011, 11:36:45 pm
What, me vote?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 18, 2011, 07:02:42 am
This is the best explanation of RomneyCare I have seen.  http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Mitt-Romneys-Health-Care-Advantage-David-French-05-17-2011?offset=0&max=1  I believe Dave mentioned that it would kill Romney's chances and it may but this explains why it he didn't back away from it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2011, 07:26:01 am
If it doesn't kill Romney's chances, it should.  Romney would be an extremely flawed vessel to exploit one of the best grassroots issues against running against Obama -- ObamaCare, with its mandatory component, disregard for the marketplace and impact on the budget.... and Romney's plan had each of those defects.  So while it is conceivable Romney might get the nomination, it would mean effectively muting the attack which could be made on ObamaCare in 2012, and significantly improve Obama's chances of re-election (which should be extremely low).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 18, 2011, 08:54:18 am
Did you actually read the link?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 18, 2011, 09:05:35 am
One day, as Brian rides his bike to Whole Foods, a Chevy Volt broadsides him. The electric engine was just too darn quiet. He never heard it coming.

LOL!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 18, 2011, 01:06:24 pm
I read the link, Robb.

The situation is horrible.  I certainly wouldn't dispute that.  But the solution is not to take away the individual's right to choose how to run his own life. 

The solution that Romney should be advocating, is to eliminate the idiotic law that Reagan signed.  Make plain to everyone that if they do not have health insurance and can not pay for their own medical emergencies, then neither the government nor the hospital will pay for their treatment.

If there are those out there that feel that this is too hard hearted, then they can start a voluntary fund where anyone wanting to help in such situations can contribute to the cost of such treatment.

Otherwise, the government is given total control over our lives.  We shouldn't eat unhealthy food, because we might get sick at government expense.  We should't smoke because we might get sick at government expense.  We must wear seat belts because we might get hurt at government expense.  We must wear helmets because we might get hurt at government expense.

Of course, it is all right to produce as many children as we wish, even though they will be fed and clothed at government expense.  After all, the promiscuous are voters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on May 18, 2011, 04:44:26 pm
One day, as Brian rides his bike to Whole Foods, a Chevy Volt broadsides him. The electric engine was just too darn quiet. He never heard it coming.

LOL!

Best line ever!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 18, 2011, 05:43:09 pm
Did you actually read the link?

All three pages of it.

And that is PART of the problem, that it takes three pages to explain what to most of those who are upset enough to want an explanation would want explained in about two sentences.... or less.

The other part of the problem is that even after reading the explanation, I was less than persuaded that it was a "good idea," which is the way Romney tries to present it.

It would be far better for Romney to say something along the following line: "Folks it was an approach which never should have been taken, but given the fact that I was dealing with a very liberal legislature which wanted to do even more foolish things, I worked with lawmakers to get a plan passed with would be least harmful for the state.  Would I do it again?  Certainly, if the same situation presented itself in Massachusets, but I have opposed ObamaCare from the start and would dismantle it immediately on taking office."

That might work.  The "explanation" at that link will not.

(I do agree with Dave's post for what should be done on the national level, but a governor has virtually no ability to repeal the federal legislation requiring hospitals to provide emergency medical care regardless of ability to pay.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 18, 2011, 07:38:26 pm
A state governor can not affect federal legislation, but that is no reason to make things worse in your state because of it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 19, 2011, 10:08:26 am
The ratings for cable news programs are out for April.  The top 11 rated shows are all from Fox News Channel.


Which only proves, once again, that fiction is more popular than nonfiction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 19, 2011, 12:12:34 pm
They got to stop airing those Obama speeches.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 19, 2011, 09:44:29 pm
The FBI is trying to get a sample of the unibomber in connection with the Tylinol case.

Do we not collect samples of DNA for all convicted prisoners?  If not, why not.  It is certainly not any more invasive than taking their fingerprints.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 19, 2011, 10:03:39 pm
Idiot.  Read the Bleachers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 20, 2011, 12:36:41 pm
They got to stop airing those Obama speeches.

Oh no, it's all in the delivery.  If airing Obama's speeches were all it took then CSPAN would lead the league.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: guest118 on May 20, 2011, 03:52:14 pm
Nobama, Our Muslim in Chief.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 20, 2011, 04:52:34 pm
Beer, so you know, most people have you on Ignore.  You're wasting your repetitive posts.  Just sayin'
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 20, 2011, 04:59:21 pm
Who said that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 20, 2011, 05:11:58 pm
One of the four guys that almost everybody has on Ignore.  You can guess who the other three are.  LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on May 20, 2011, 05:40:55 pm
I can't! Does that mean I'm one of them??? =p
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 20, 2011, 05:44:52 pm
Anyone with Red or Cardinal in the username, rubberfin.  :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: dogstoothe on May 21, 2011, 03:14:28 am
Sort of difficult to follow the thread when you have people on ignore, ain't it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 21, 2011, 08:00:48 am
Sort of difficult to follow the thread when you have people on ignore, ain't it?

And when you don't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 21, 2011, 12:10:04 pm
So apparently the world is ending today and nobody told me.  I'm always the last to know.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 21, 2011, 01:28:36 pm
So apparently the world is ending today and nobody told me.  I'm always the last to know.
At least I got to see Greece before the end.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 21, 2011, 01:32:08 pm
Me too.  Travolta was great.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 21, 2011, 01:33:54 pm
Olivia!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 21, 2011, 01:35:02 pm
Sort of difficult to follow the thread when you have people on ignore, ain't it?

That's what's sad.  Since most of the ignored spout the same thing all the time, as soon as you see who said something, you can pretty well figure out what they said.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 21, 2011, 06:07:43 pm
Well that sucks,  it's past 6 and the world didn't end.  So much for getting out of my crappy mortgage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on May 21, 2011, 08:01:00 pm
Well that sucks,  it's past 6 and the world didn't end.  So much for getting out of my crappy mortgage.
There were people charging to take care of your pet after you "ascended".  The logic of somebody taking them up on that offer escapes me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on May 21, 2011, 08:22:35 pm
I wonder how much money those pet people make.  They've been around for a while...I heard about them a couple years ago, so it wasn't just for today's ridiculousness.

I also wonder if there will be any lawsuits brought against Harold Camping, the guy who started the whole thing.  I think he's more a conman than someone who sincerely believes what he says, and people gave him their entire life savings for this thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 21, 2011, 09:01:39 pm
I heard Camping's GPS is "RECALCULATING."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 21, 2011, 09:03:12 pm
I am fairly active in fundamentalist circles, and I had never heard of Camping.  He sounds like a west coast thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JBN on May 21, 2011, 09:26:53 pm
You can't predict things lik that in life.

Only Wrestling events and Cubs baseball.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 21, 2011, 09:27:48 pm
You CAN predict things like that.

You just aren't likely to be right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 22, 2011, 07:31:47 am
Mitch Daniels is out for 2012.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55424.html

Looks like the Republican nominee is down to only Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Huntsman, or someone Obama would beat by 20 points.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 22, 2011, 10:01:15 am
Looks like I root for Pawlenty, as the best of the worst.

At least it isn't McCain.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 22, 2011, 10:28:08 am
Pawlenty...paw-leeze.  A dead turnip has more personality and more chance to beat Obama.

Gingrich has baggage, but could be the better leader.

Right now, I think Cain would have a better shot than Pawlenty.

The two women are so polarizing they're nearly tri-polar.

Sanctorum is exactly that.

Hell, about now I'd take a third term of Clinton.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 22, 2011, 11:12:44 am
Alan West would be awesome.  He has a future
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 22, 2011, 01:39:43 pm
Gary Johnson...a Republican who would legalize pot...you don't see that every day.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2011, 08:00:51 am
Do we not collect samples of DNA for all convicted prisoners?  If not, why not.  It is certainly not any more invasive than taking their fingerprints.

Many states collect it for those convicted of some certain (or all) sex crimes, thought I believe the publicly reservations about requiring it so far have been the costs associated with storage of the samples.  While those have been the PUBLICLY stated reasons, I suspect the reasons which are more accurate are:

1) General incompetence among lawmakers and executives who determine what policy approaches will be adopted or considered;

2) A great many of those in law enforcement are reluctant to create such records because they understand how often the records can come back to bight the prosecution in the ass and establish that someone already convicted (or convictable) could use DNA evidence to establish innocence and get a conviction reversed (or prevented in the first place).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2011, 08:17:54 am
I also wonder if there will be any lawsuits brought against Harold Camping, the guy who started the whole thing.  I think he's more a conman than someone who sincerely believes what he says, and people gave him their entire life savings for this thing. 

One of the beauties of the American legal system is that you can sue anyone for anything.... including long dead folks for things which happened before they were born.  Of course, the fact that you can sue them doesn't mean there is any chance of winning... or of collecting on a judgement even if you do win.  Hard to see those wanting to sue Camping able to frame anything resembling a winning lawsuit based on his predictions (knowingly fraudulent or otherwise) about the end of the world.

Looks like the Republican nominee is down to only Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Huntsman, or someone Obama would beat by 20 points.

Romney's problem remains RomneyCare, and the fact that having Romney running against Obama would effectively neuter the Republican ticket on what should be one of the most effective Republican issues -- ObamaCare.  Pawlenty might well be able to win, but is truly a dead fish.  Huntsman has neither experience nor name recognition nor a strong energized base nor any apparent appeal to a significant constituency which might get him some early traction.

Cain, Paul and Johnson all have certain appeals to the Tea Party base, which could be enough to get the 2012 nomination, and each would have some definite advantages in running against Obama (though also each different advantages), and  if the issues a year and a half from now are the way they appear likely to be could easily beat Obama.

Gary Johnson...a Republican who would legalize pot...you don't see that every day.

Actually, probably at least 10% of those likely to vote Republican in the general election not only would support that, but would see that position as a major reason to support a candidate.  Johnson and Paul, the two with clear libertarian views on the issue, are also not so much in favor of legalization as they are in favor of getting the federal government completely out of the picture and leaving the issue to the states (many of which would either legalize or seriously decriminalize if the feds were out of the picture on the matter).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 23, 2011, 11:47:57 am
That is a shame that we do not collect and save DNA samples of anyone convicted of a felony.  Has anyone seen a reliable estimate of the cost that would be involved?

Although not a republican, I have voted for the republican candidate in almost all national elections.  And I am in favor of the federal government getting out of the drug business for not only ****, but also ****, ****, crack, and just about every non-prescription drug.

For some reason, the words marihuana, cokaine and haroine were censored.  Maybe they preferred that they be misspelled.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 23, 2011, 02:11:25 pm
Pawlenty announced his candidacy today in Iowa.  And immediately called for the phaseout of ethanol subsidies.

Anyone want to bet on his chances of winning the Iowa caucus?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2011, 02:16:49 pm
If he does poorly in Iowa, that is not likely going to be the cause.

Farmers fully understand that ethanol subsidies largely benefit big agribusiness, and very little the smaller individual farmer (in other words the folks who vote), and they also understand that farmers in general would be much better off if government got itself out of agriculture to a large degree.  Many would be wildly happy if government both ended all farm subsidies and also imposed no controls on where and what they can export.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 23, 2011, 05:31:58 pm
Sorry, Jes.  Ethanol subsidies benefit farmers greatly.  Ethanol demand for corn has driven corn prices to more than 7 dollars per bushel.  Large farms can make money on corn at about 2.25 per bushel, while small family farms come out ahead at about 2.75.

Farmers that voted for someone that wants to eliminate ethanol subsidies would be, as far as their own pocket book is concerned, very foolish.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 23, 2011, 05:36:30 pm
Sorry, Jes.  Ethanol subsidies benefit farmers greatly.  On a dollar basis, hundreds of times more greatly.

More greatly than what?

I am not arguing your basic point, because I may well be completely wrong on just how the ethanol subsidies operate, but "hundreds of times more greatly" than what?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 23, 2011, 06:32:16 pm
Before you replied, I had already modified my post.

But my point was that without the subsidies, the small farmers would no longer exist.  Large agribusiness is much more efficient than small family farms, and without subsidies, would long ago been driven out of business.

By the way, even the term "small family farms" is rapidly becoming extinct.  Even a great many family farms are no longer small.  Family farms now farm thousands of acres of wheat and corn.  Others produce thousands of pigs.  Farms that produce hundreds of thousands of chicken are owned by family corporations.  There are still many "small farmers" left, but without the government subsidies (ethanol is only one small one) they would be totally extinct.

Which, by the way, would not be a bad thing.  But in the meantime, all the small farmers vote.  As do the people owning the family farm corporations.  And the thousands of small businessmen scattered throughout Iowa and other states that make a living when the farmers are prosperous.

Farmers eat at the public trough even more than the citizens of the inner cities.  And they know where their subsidies come from.  Pawlenty will recant his position or he will lose Iowa.  He may well win enough states to run in the general election, but he isn't helping himself in Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 23, 2011, 07:08:53 pm
Of course, Dave...there is another way to look at it.

Some family farms or corporate farms that raise cattle or hogs would love to see less corn going to ethanol and the price of corn coming down.  It cuts into their meat profit in two ways: it costs more to raise the animal and it raises the price at the store to the point people don't buy it, bringing demand down and lowering price even more.  Most of these people are Republicans.  Most of them have a saying: turning food into energy has never been a good idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 23, 2011, 07:15:32 pm
No subsidy helps everyone.  Whenever the government interferes in the free market, some are hurt and others are helped.  That is only one reason why there should be NO subsidies.

I suspect that throughout Iowa, there are more corn farmers than there are pig farmers.  And that more money comes into the state because of corn farming than because of pig farming.  But you are right, it is my firm hope that those outside of the corn industry get so sick of increased food prices that they vote for candidates that will try to do away with them.

But that doesn't change the original discussion, that Iowa isn't a wise place to announce that you want to end subsidies on ethanol.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 23, 2011, 07:20:04 pm
Whenever the government interferes in the free market, some are hurt and others are helped.

The same could be said for when government doesn't interfere.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 23, 2011, 07:33:43 pm

But that doesn't change the original discussion, that Iowa isn't a wise place to announce that you want to end subsidies on ethanol.

Most of those ******* can't read or write anyhow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 23, 2011, 08:25:30 pm
"The same could be said for when government doesn't interfere."

True.  But I trust the free market a lot more than I trust the government.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 23, 2011, 11:56:26 pm
True.  But I trust the free market a lot more than I trust the government.

For myself, I don't fully trust either. Some would say that complete trust in government is the road to tyranny.  Others that complete trust in the "free market" (whatever that means) will lead to anarchy. I try not to trust people who trust too much.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2011, 09:03:30 am
But my point was that without the subsidies, the small farmers would no longer exist.  Large agribusiness is much more efficient than small family farms, and without subsidies, would long ago been driven out of business....  There are still many "small farmers" left, but without the government subsidies (ethanol is only one small one) they would be totally extinct....  Farmers eat at the public trough even more than the citizens of the inner cities.  And they know where their subsidies come from.  Pawlenty will recant his position or he will lose Iowa.  He may well win enough states to run in the general election, but he isn't helping himself in Iowa. 

We will see about your predictions.  Huckabee won in Iowa, and I don't recall his position on ethanol, but I believe he opposed it.  As to small farms being "totally extinct," you overstate the situation much the same as the alarmists who claim we will totally "run out of oil" if we do not make major, government directed, investment in "alternative energy," and that there will be "no oil" left in the ground.

(On checking Huckabee's positions before the 2008 primary in Iowa, you are correct and he clearly appeared to be pandering on ethanol to get the Iowa vote.  Since I decided I could not support Huckabee for other reasons, his position on ethanol was not one I paid much attention to at the time.)

But trying to compare foolish government spending to distort economic decisions ("Farmers eat at the public trough even more than the citizens of the inner cities") to me is rather pointless.  I don't know which one gets more -- NEITHER should get any.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on May 24, 2011, 09:18:56 am
Everyone watch out...Harold Camping has spoken, and the world is now ending on October 21.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 24, 2011, 09:23:51 am
So, the Cubs pull off a miracle and make the playoffs and just about the time that they win the NL and are about to go to the World Series the world ends...yeah, sounds about right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 24, 2011, 09:24:13 am
RECALCULATING
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on May 24, 2011, 10:30:50 am
TURN RIGHT, NOW!

Haha...I love that commerical.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2011, 11:49:44 am
I suspect that throughout Iowa, there are more corn farmers than there are pig farmers.  And that more money comes into the state because of corn farming than because of pig farming.  But you are right, it is my firm hope that those outside of the corn industry get so sick of increased food prices that they vote for candidates that will try to do away with them.  But that doesn't change the original discussion, that Iowa isn't a wise place to announce that you want to end subsidies on ethanol.

Some people are actually willing to vote for the national interest over their own narrow self interest, particularly when their narrow self interest is benefited at the clear expense of others.  Because of the tendency of politicians to pander, it is often hard to tell whether a principled position in Iowa would be as harmful as you suggest.  I hope we will see next year, and that you are surprised in the process.  Johnson, Paul and Cain are almost all certain to be openly and clearly and unequivocally opposed to ethanol subsidies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 24, 2011, 12:09:58 pm
Some people are indeed willing to vote for the national interests over their own narrow interests.  Unfortunately, not enough to actually win an election over those that DO vote in their own narrow interest.

And I am not prediction that Pawlenty will lose Iowa.  Merely that he increased his odds of losing by making that announcement.  I, personally, am against every action the government takes with the intention of raising agricultural prices, probably since I used to make a living dealing in those markets, and saw first hand what effect they had on nonfarming citizens.  Sugar price supports cost consumers almost 3 billion dollars per year in higher prices.  The conservation Reserve Program costs us more than 100 billion per year in higher prices.  And these are only two of the hundreds of programs, large and small, that raise our prices in the supermarket.

As far as "small farms" are concerned, I suppose it depends upon what you consider small.  I don't know of any national figures, but I do no first hand that in Emmons County, North Dakota, the number of farmers has declined by more than 60% in the past 30 years, even though the number of farmland being cultivated has increased by about 25%.  In other words, the average size of farms is increasing greatly there.  My wife has three grand-nephews there that own farms, and every one of them works in Bismark and leases his land to larger landowners.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2011, 12:25:20 pm
But, Dave, who among the Republicans do you think will provide a remotely viable pro-ethanol option for the Iowa caucus?

Didn't Romney oppose it in 2008?  (I am not sure on that, but believe he did.)  Paul and Johnson are certain to oppose ethanol subsidies, and I would be very surprised in Cain supported them.  Gingrich?  Bachmann?  Palin?  I don't see any of them likely to support ethanol (and two of them I hope do not get into the race), though positioning for crass political advantage would hardly be a first for a presidential race.

As to the tendency toward larger farming operations, that does not eliminate small farms any more than mass produced kitchenware has eliminated hand-potters.  Without question there are a lot fewer of them, and society is the better for it, but those wanting to do it are able to try, and some do in fact make a living at it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 24, 2011, 12:54:51 pm
And I am not prediction that Pawlenty will lose Iowa.  Merely that he increased his odds of losing by making that announcement.

Pawlenty actually received support from the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association for his ethanol stance.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55531.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55531.html)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 24, 2011, 01:38:43 pm
Jes - you are once again resorting to the extreme.  I never said that there were ZERO small farmers.  Near extinct is not identical to totally extinct.  And I said was that WITHOUT SUBSIDIES, small farmers would be extinct.  We HAVE subsidies, and they are not extinct.

But we were talking about political sway.  The fact that, lacking subsidies, there would still be a relative handful of small farmers, would still make their views politically extinct.

And I never said that a politician has to be pro-ethanol subsidy in order to win in Iowa.  Merely that announcing that you are anti-ethanol subsidy will lose more votes than it wins in Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2011, 03:36:36 pm
Jes - you are once again resorting to the extreme.  I never said that there were ZERO small farmers.

Dave, here is what you wrote: But my point was that without the subsidies, the small farmers would no longer exist.

True enough that you did not say there would be "ZERO small farmers."  You just said "small farmers would no longer exist."  Excuse me if I took those to mean the same thing.


And I never said that a politician has to be pro-ethanol subsidy in order to win in Iowa.  Merely that announcing that you are anti-ethanol subsidy will lose more votes than it wins in Iowa.

What you wrote was Some people are indeed willing to vote for the national interests over their own narrow interests.  Unfortunately, not enough to actually win an election over those that DO vote in their own narrow interest.

Again, excuse me if I see those posts as in conflict.  You apparently are able to reconcile them.  I bow to your clearly superior command of the language, because I can't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 24, 2011, 04:29:51 pm
Jes - I suppose you could maintain that as long as you plant your upside down tomatoes, that small farmers would not be extinct.

Of course, you would simultaneously right and ridiculous.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2011, 06:24:46 pm
As I said, Dave, I simply lack your skills with the language.  That is the only thing I can think of, because I can not look at what you wrote, in either case, and reconcile them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 24, 2011, 10:30:20 pm
I thought narrow self interest was the key to the universe.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 24, 2011, 11:28:29 pm
It is.... in free market transactions.  It is not when the self interest amounts to steal from others to fill your own pocket, whether you are using government as the vehicle for the theft or a .45.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 26, 2011, 09:45:52 pm
Gee...I thought our political process was a "free market". If you don't like the subsidizers, vote 'em out. Nothing unfair about that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 27, 2011, 07:25:34 am
FDISK, if 51% of the people vote together to take by force or threat of imprisonment the earnings of the other 49% and have those earnings redistributed to the first group, it is not the "free market."  It is instead theft by the government.  And it is no different whether the percentages in the second group (those having their money taken) or the first group (those getting the money) are raised or lowered.  It is also no different whether the money is given to the first group as a "subsidy" to encourage production of something or as an "income transfer" to simply "help" the first group afford the costs of life.  Nor does the fact that those in the first group (those getting the money) are in the majority, or have lawmakers define the statutory definition of theft so that it does not include actions by the government.  Theft has a common meaning completely independent of statutory definitions, and what I have set out applies.  The idea that those in the second group, who are an increasingly smaller minority from most years to the next, should "vote 'em out," when those in the first group who believe they benefit from the theft and are far more numerous and also get to vote (and are generally very happy with the theft, so long as a large chunk of it is sent in their direction), is absurd.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2011, 06:33:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_N44z63gRI&feature=related

Tom Jefferson would be proud of the police protecting his monument.... or, maybe not....

Some background.... which is not any better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQt7CFXYlyc&feature=related
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 11:39:55 am
When the IED hit my daughter's convoy 4 years ago, she only suffered a concussion, but 13 Afghanistani civilians were killed in the blast.

Since then, on every Memorial Day she goes down to the beach and places 13 white roses into the ocean.

That is what she is doing as I write this.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 11:44:44 am
why do we have to drill? Why can't they start up the wells in Tx an La where they have been shut down for years.

Repealing the Excess Profits Tax would start pumping within a few months, and would have an immediate impact on oil prices.  But long term, it will take drilling offshore and Alaska to solve the problem for the next hundred years or so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 30, 2011, 12:23:54 pm
Dave, where's that quote from?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 01:33:55 pm
Which quote?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 30, 2011, 02:12:19 pm
On my screen it says, quote from navigator on Today at 08:52:52 am

why do we have to drill? Why can't they start up the wells in Tx an La where they have been shut down for years.

And you respond to it.  But I don't see that quote on the page.  Did it come from another topic or is something lost on mine?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 02:17:32 pm
Sorry.  That quote came from the Politics thread on the Bear's board.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 30, 2011, 02:27:29 pm
You brought one of THEIR quotes over HERE?  We're infected!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 02:29:39 pm
Don't complain to me.

When you showed me how to do the quote thing, you should have known I would use the power for evil.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 30, 2011, 02:30:45 pm
LOL  I didn't realize that you could bring the quote to another board or topic.  How the heck did you do that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 02:36:44 pm
Honestly, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 30, 2011, 02:49:20 pm
Did you have two windows open?

Not in your house or in your car, on your computer...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 03:07:19 pm
I remember now.  When I hit the quote button, I just copied the stuff that appeared in the quick reply area.  Then I went to the baseball board and copied it into the quick reply area, and added my answer.

I wonder why I did that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 30, 2011, 03:08:15 pm
You won't like my answer to that one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 30, 2011, 03:14:08 pm
For those too young to remember, the original name for this holiday was "Decoration Day", where everyone was asked to go to the graves of those who had died in war (at that time, the Civil War) and decorate them with flowers in rememberance of their sacrifice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 30, 2011, 04:27:02 pm
FDISK, if 51% of the people vote together to take by force or threat of imprisonment the earnings of the other 49% and have those earnings redistributed to the first group, it is not the "free market."  It is instead theft by the government.

Okay...whatever that has to do with the price tea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 01, 2011, 08:28:38 am
This is killing the value of the dollar and reeking havoc on the price of goods.  I can't believe there is talk of another QE.   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/threes-a-charm-analyst-says-to-prepare-for-3rd-round-of-quantitative-easing/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on June 01, 2011, 08:49:02 am
Human filth and garbage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 01, 2011, 02:24:46 pm
There HAS to be another QE.  Even the Chinese have reduced their purchasing of our debt.  The Fed is the only purchaser left.

Soon we will vote to raise the debt limit in return for PROMISES of spending cuts, not ACTUAL spending cuts.

And then we will need still another QE.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2011, 03:18:46 pm
I agree that there WILL be another QE (the euphemism for printing more money, which is itself a euphemism for stealing from everyone holding dollars, or any asset valued in dollars).  That is not quite the same as saying there HAS to be another QE.

One of the reasons I like former NM Governor Johnson as a candidate for president is that he says we need to balance the budget NOW.  Not in ten years or 20 years, or simply "bend the curve," but simply cut balance it NOW.  That kind of approach would force folks to face reality and to put everything on the table... and like result in massive spending cuts.  That is what is needed.  Not ramping up the printing presses.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 01, 2011, 09:06:36 pm
Weiner is crazy to deny that the underwear picture is his.  For a democrat, this is one of the best resume enhancements he could get.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: guest118 on June 07, 2011, 02:16:27 pm
Good to see Nobama has the economy in order!!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!! Nope. How are those gas prices, the economy (which he has done nothing to fix), unemploment, the housing market.......endless mess.

Now he lies about the auto indutry bailout. Check those facts Nobama!!!! Oh yeah...teleprmpter malfunction again.

Blago and Weiner (showing his weiner) on the cover of the Trib....got love the DUMBmocrats.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 09, 2011, 03:31:43 pm
It looks like Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign is on its last legs.  Just about all of his major political advisers have resigned.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56631.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2011, 09:54:42 pm
Good.  Newt is a bright guy, and might be an asset to a Republican administration, but he is a flawed vessel as a candidate, not just because of his personal baggage, but because he can't figure out how to shut his mouth.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 09, 2011, 09:58:23 pm
This would be a great time for Perry to enter the race.  Not only is there a staff in waiting, many of whom have worked for him before, but also because he is probably the only one out there that can win over botn the economic conservatives, but also the social conservatives.  His entry would just about eliminate Bachman, and keep Palin out of ther race.  I think it would also kill what chances Romney has.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 10, 2011, 08:48:26 am
Good.  Newt is a bright guy, and might be an asset to a Republican administration, but he is a flawed vessel as a candidate, not just because of his personal baggage, but because he can't figure out how to shut his mouth.
He's a black kettle.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 10, 2011, 12:37:30 pm
Black Kettle was an indian.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 10, 2011, 12:56:20 pm
Hey, Dave, next time you're at a bar, order an Obama.  Doesn't matter what's in it, somebody else pays for it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 10, 2011, 01:48:29 pm
Damb Repuglian.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 10, 2011, 10:04:16 pm
Choices....choices...so many choices...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pZpfVOqI6A
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 10, 2011, 10:06:31 pm
I am not supporting Palin, but she was right that Revere did warn the British.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 10, 2011, 10:28:39 pm
Yeah...old Paul probably pooped in the woods too, but that doesn't mean Sarah would know the difference.  I challenge anyone to watch and listen to that video and then picture Ms. Palin with her finger on The Button. (Please feel free to picture Sarah as you wish...)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 11, 2011, 06:34:20 am
Scary.  I actually had that thought, FD, when I saw her try to defend her original statement.  Okay, you're at a summit of world leaders and you're going to explain your position like a high school cheerleader?

But, she can still be President.  Our current guy thinks there's only 47 states or something like that and they gave him a pass.  LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 11, 2011, 06:46:50 am
I wouldn't want Palin anywhere near the button or the Oval office unless it's on a  tour.  I also don't want Obama anywhere near it either.  What a freaking disaster!  America goes and hires a guy to run the largest organization in the world who has never run anything or had a real job in his life.  His economic team were a bunch of academics who had never worked in the real world either.  Those who can, do, those who can't, teach.  Nearly everything Obama has done to make the economy better has made it worse.  All he can say is it was Bush's fault.  Car was in the ditch blah blah blah.  It's time to fire the guy and his team before he can do any more damage.  Even Palin has more executive experience than Obama and did pretty well in it.  Not saying I want her either. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 08:15:36 am
Robb, not all of Obama's economic advisers, or economic team have been academics who never worked in the real world (though I don't see the problem in that with economic advisers), and his first chief economic adviser, Christina Romer, was actually pretty sensible, and she left because her advice was being ignored.  But the problem is not the makeup of his formal team of advisers.  The problem is the substantive policy positions that Obama takes.

And those who want to beat the drum of his inexperience need to remember that in 2012, no matter who runs against him, Obama will be the most experienced option available (unless George Bush, Sr., or Carter, come out mothballs).  Experience, or lack thereof, is no longer the thing to attack (not that it did well as a point of attack in 2008).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 11, 2011, 09:33:36 am
Pretty much all of Obama's original team of economic advisers have left too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 11, 2011, 09:33:41 am
I could care less about what strategies should be used to attack him.  If the economy sucks like it does now there is a good chance he loses, if not then he will win.  I am merely stating what the problem is.  He doesn't know what the hell he is doing.  I am not among those who believe he is trying to run the country into the ground on purpose but it's like Ronald Reagan said,  “It’s not that liberals aren’t smart, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so.”
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 11, 2011, 09:39:44 am
  If the economy sucks like it does now there is a good chance he loses, if not then he will win.

Only if the candidate running against him is credible and has some attractiveness.  Pawlenty is credible, but he's vanilla.  Palin is attractive, but not credible.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 09:59:26 am
Pretty much all of Obama's original team of economic advisers have left too.

Likely because many of them felt he was ignoring their advice and pushing foolish positions.  That appeared to have been the case with Romer.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 10:13:14 am
I could care less about what strategies should be used to attack him.  If the economy sucks like it does now there is a good chance he loses, if not then he will win.

Really?  Sure sounded as if you were concerned about the outcome in your prior post....  It's time to fire the guy and his team before he can do any more damage.

While it may well be that there is a continuum along which at one extreme Obama wins regardless what strategies or rhetoric is used against him, and at the other extreme Obama loses regardless what strategies or rhetoric is used against him, we are not likely to see an election in 2012 where we are so far out toward either extreme that the rhetoric and strategies make no difference.  It appears you believe we as a nation would be better off without Obama winning, and that you personally would like to see him lose.  If that is the case, raising the "experience" issue at this point, or for the 2012 election is foolish to the point of being counter-productive.  Obama will be far more experienced as president, or as a chief executive of a large governmental body or as Commander in Chief, than anyone who will run against him.  It is a simple point, and frankly not one I can see a person disputing.

He doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

BINGO!  That should be the focus of attack, by addressing what he has done which has been counter-productive, what he has wanted to do which would be worse (cap and tax), and what he is likely to do if re-elected.

Only if the candidate running against him is credible and has some attractiveness.  Pawlenty is credible, but he's vanilla.  Palin is attractive, but not credible.

Palin is unlikely to run in 2012, and as vanilla as Pawlenty might be, when he would be contrasted with Obama who is likely to be perceived as toxic waste, he would be plenty "attractive."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 11, 2011, 12:08:25 pm
I think the only one out there that has a good chance of beating Obama is Perry, of Texas.  He is in favor with the tea partiers, and also with many of the republican establishment.

If the tea partiers do not show up at the polls, the republicans will probably lose the house, as well as the presidency.  It is hard to see them failing to win the Senate, regardless of what happens.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on June 11, 2011, 12:20:16 pm
I think republican turnout will be way up next time. All those that stayed home to "teach the republicans a lesson" are not likely to make that mistake again regardless of who the nominee is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 12:36:37 pm
I
I think the only one out there that has a good chance of beating Obama is Perry, of Texas.  He is in favor with the tea partiers, and also with many of the republican establishment.

The only Republicans being talked about who I believe would NOT beat Obama are Palin (who has the sense not to run), Trump (who is not going to run), Bachmann, (who has no chance of getting the nomination), and possibly Gingrich.

Any other Republican under discussion would beat Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 11, 2011, 02:00:46 pm
That may be true, as long as the economy stays where it is, but if the economy shows signs of improvement by this time next year, Obama will be tough to beat no matter who runs.  It looks as if the tea party movement has lost it's steam, and I don't think the turnout will be as good as some people expect.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 03:05:08 pm
Economic improvement is almost always slow to register, particularly to register on unemployment.  Considering where things are now (and the fact that the current indications are that things are more likely to get worse than they are to get better), there is no way voters will perceive the economy as doing well in November of 2012.

You look at it as Obama being tough to beat no matter who runs, but really give no indication what the election would reverse so much electoral history to re-elect Obama.  I look at it as Obama have difficulty winning no matter who runs, and point to the fact that since FDR no president has won re-election with the kind of unemployment rate Obama will have, that the economy shows no sign of being better in a year and a half, that Obama's negatives are greater than his positives, that the Republican vote has grown much more than the Democratic vote in the last two years in some large swing states, and that the Senate races will help to turn out Republican votes in states where Obama needs them.  Three of Obama's strongest constituencies -- black voters, young voters and liberal anti-war voters -- will also likely be somewhat disaffected voters in 2012.  Their turnout is likely to be much poorer than the Tea Party turnout.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 11, 2011, 03:25:32 pm
Economic improvement is almost always slow to register, particularly to register on unemployment.  Considering where things are now (and the fact that the current indications are that things are more likely to get worse than they are to get better), there is no way voters will perceive the economy as doing well in November of 2012.


You have more faith in the average voter than I do.  If the unemployment numbers show decreases next summer, the media will be trumpeting that "the worst is over", and this is not time to make changes to policies that are clearly working.

If the numbers are going the other way at that time, Obama could probably be beaten by just about anyone.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 04:19:53 pm
"The media" is of ever shrinking importance, largely because of ever shrinking ratings.  "The media's" love for Obama, disgusting as it was, made relatively little difference to help Obama in 2008.  It will again make relatively little difference in 2012.  Certainly there is no more love for Obama than there was hatred for Reagan or for Nixon, and both won re-election rather handily.  I would not be very concerned about what efforts "the media" might make to help anyone.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 11, 2011, 05:38:14 pm
The media is of reduced importance, especially among political "junkies" who watch the 24 hour news channels, but the average voter is more likely to be influenced by the Jon Stewart show, the Colbert Report, or the various daytime talk shows and sitcoms (which I include in the "media")  than they are by Fox News or CNN.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 06:01:56 pm
The ratings of Jon Stewart and the Colbert report are so low that any decent viral video beats them.  You give these folks far more significance than they deserve.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 11, 2011, 06:29:14 pm
http://www.politicususa.com/en/jon-stewart-fox-ratings
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 11, 2011, 06:31:01 pm
Perhaps.  But I don't think so.  They, and others like them are insidious, because they operate on underlying assumptions that they never need defend.

And their viewership is quite a bit more than you seem to believe.


Count another one for Comedy Central's Jon Stewart in his ongoing war against Fox News.

The "Daily Show" host bested the conservative network's ratings by more than 400,000 viewers in May's Nielsen ratings with 2.3 million tuning in to watch the left-leaning comedian over 1.84 million for the entire Fox News primetime lineup.

CNN meanwhile had 800,000 viewers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 11, 2011, 06:45:30 pm
"They, and others like them are insidious, because they operate on underlying assumptions that they never need defend."


I'm confused...are we talking about COMEDIANS operating on underlying assumptions?....Or is it "news organizations"  operating on underlying assumptions? 

Nothing more insidious than an assuming comedian.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 07:40:56 pm
i And their viewership is quite a bit more than you seem to believe.

But those who watch Fox, or news on any outlet for that matter, are far more likely to vote than those who watch Stewart or Colbert.  You, and FDISK, also seem to be comparing the ratings of one program with the ratings of 24 hours worth of programming.  Stewart averaged (according to FDISK's link) 2.3M viewers a day, while Fox, at any one time had an average of 1.85M viewers during the 3 prime time hours and the 1=14 daytime hours.  Now some of those watching Fox from one hour to the next are the same viewers, but during the 12 daytime hours and the 3 prime time hours, you have a cumulative total far in excess of what Stewart gets.

Again, you overestimate the significance of that cr*p.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 11, 2011, 08:42:05 pm
Speaking of assuming comedians....

That has got to be the lamest rationalization I've ever read...well...at least the lamest thing since the last time Sarah Palin tried to rewrite wikipedia.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 11, 2011, 08:43:53 pm
Here you go Jes....a how-to on how to re-write history.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217359/Sarah_Palin_fans_try_to_rewrite_history_on_Wikipedia
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 11, 2011, 08:48:45 pm
Listen, my children, and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,

On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five;

Hardly a man is now alive

Who remembers that Paul was really warning the British...you know....who was riding his horse through town...and you know.... like ringing bells...and stuff...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 11, 2011, 08:56:39 pm
Hey, not her fault the British didn't listen!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 08:57:29 pm
So, FDISK, I am trying to make sure I am understanding your last few posts.

Are you contending that Palin was factually wrong is saying that Revere warned the British?

And are you taking the Longfellow poem as factually accurate?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 11, 2011, 08:59:24 pm
You're wrong, Jes.  those who watch Jon Stewart are very likely to vote.  And very likely to pick up their political views from Stewart and others like him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 11, 2011, 09:09:49 pm
And you base that on..... what, exactly?  I suspect that Stewart influences very few voters.  In addition to many of his viewers not being voters, he is unlikely to shift opinions of those watching, and instead likely draws an audience largely made up of folks who already agreed with him.  That is why they find so much of his schtick funny.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 11, 2011, 09:13:59 pm
You have more faith in the average voter than I do.  If the unemployment numbers show decreases next summer, the media will be trumpeting that "the worst is over", and this is not time to make changes to policies that are clearly working.

If the numbers are going the other way at that time, Obama could probably be beaten by just about anyone.

This
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 11, 2011, 09:14:47 pm
Wiener is taking a blow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on June 11, 2011, 09:21:18 pm
Wiener is taking a blow.

(Rimshot)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 11, 2011, 09:23:45 pm
Which is it, a rimshot or a blow?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 11, 2011, 09:29:04 pm
Instead of nasty comments, we should admire his courage in coming forward and give Wiener a hand.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 11, 2011, 09:30:05 pm
Wiener is pointing the way for other politicians.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 11, 2011, 09:35:20 pm
I wonder when Comedy Central will have a Wiener roast?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on June 11, 2011, 10:38:29 pm
Come on now...Paul Revere's ride was not to warn the British about taking our nations Second Admendment rights away.

How freaking dumb.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 11, 2011, 11:41:33 pm
Yep...it turns out that Paul had a conversation with a British soldier, I think.  Paul told him "In your face, Sucker!  The Americans Are Coming!!"...right after he said something about British mothers and army boots...

So...with that bit of relevant information Jes has determined that Sarah Palin is historically correct in asserting that Paul Revere was protecting 2nd Amendment rights...that were not even rights for another 12 years...give or take.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 11, 2011, 11:43:15 pm
All I can picture is Tina Fey, "lock-n-load"!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 12, 2011, 09:52:01 am
Come on now...Paul Revere's ride was not to warn the British about taking our nations Second Admendment rights away.  How freaking dumb.

Well, yes, I agree that it would be dumb to think that the purpose of Revere's ride was "to warn the British about taking our nations Second Admendment rights away," particularly since it was about 15 years before the Second Amendment existed, but it would be equally dumb to believe that Palin ever SAID that was the purpose of Revere's ride.  (And as nearly as I can tell, after looking at several news reports on the story, nowhere did Palin ever mention the Second Amendment.)

Her words were as follow: And you know, he who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure, as he is riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells, that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

Now her syntax and sentence structure are typically weak, it is factually accurate that Revere DID warn the British that they were not going to be taking away the arms of the colonists.  That was not the purpose of his ride, but was instead something he did only after he was captured, at which point he essentially told the Brits that they were too late and that they were going to encounter armed resistance from the colonists.  (To see the quote yourself, and a local new report which challenged Palin NOT on the issue of warning the British, but instead on the issue of church bells being part of the warning instead of lanterns, which that news report claimed was the case -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dRqaDrhgb8&feature=related )

NPR, which has not been known as a particular defender of Sarah Palin, interviewed Robert Allison, a professor and historian at Suffolk University, about the supposed gaffe, and not only did Allison make clear that in fact bells were used for the warning, but more importantly, that Palin's comment about Revere warning the Brits was perfectly accurate.  The interviewer was Melissa Block:

Prof. ALLISON: .... (Revere) knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there, but also perhaps to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, leaders of the Continental Congress who were staying in the town of Lexington.

Remember, Gage was planning - this is a secret operation; that's why he's moving at night. He gets over to Cambridge, the troops start marching from Cambridge, and church bells are ringing throughout the countryside....

And by this time, of course, the various town committees of safety, militia knew what the signals were, so they knew something was afoot. So this is no longer a secret operation for the British.

Revere isn't trying to alert the British, but he is trying to warn them. And in April of 1775, no one was talking about independence. We're still part of the British Empire. We're trying to save it. So this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans....

But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

So, yeah, she is right in that....

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.


And NPR was not the only news outlet to point this out.

Brendan McConville, professor of history at Boston University, said yesterday that — contrary to what Palin seemed to suggest — the intent of Paul Revere’s ride was to warn the Concord area that the British were coming to seize their munitions cache, and to warn Revolutionary leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock that they faced arrest....

However, McConville said that while Revere wasn’t looking to attract British attention as he rode, after he was captured he did give a warning to the British soldiers, telling them that American patriots were ready to take them on.

“What she’s saying there is essentially right,’’ he said.
  http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/06/palin_defends_paul_revere_comments/

While there is plenty to criticize about Palin, this is not part of it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: chifaninva on June 12, 2011, 11:26:32 am
So Palin misspoke, so what. How many states did Obama say we had? I can't get over the attention Palin gets..
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 12, 2011, 11:56:01 am
Right.... except for the Palin misspoke part.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 12, 2011, 12:29:52 pm
Then why not just admit it and move on.  Instead she went on Foxx "News" and continued the nonsense.  All because she couldn't stand the thought of being wrong. She thought she could finesse her way out of her jam....just as Wiener thought he could wiggle out of his pickle.

It's sort of like...well, let's see...oh I know....it's sort of like saying that a TV show has very low relative ratings...only to be immediately challanged with facts to the exact contrary...and then spending 1500 words in a lame attempt to explain the facts away.  Sort of like that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on June 12, 2011, 12:53:27 pm
Why would you claim to have mispoke when a history professor interviewed on the very liberal leaning NPR says you got it right?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 12, 2011, 01:14:25 pm
...just as Wiener thought he could wiggle out of his pickle. <snort>
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 12, 2011, 01:27:17 pm
Then why not just admit it and move on.

Admit what.... that she was right?  She should admit that she was right and move on?

it's sort of like saying that a TV show has very low relative ratings...only to be immediately challanged with facts to the exact contrary...and then spending 1500 words in a lame attempt to explain the facts away.  Sort of like that.

It is not a "lame attempt" to point out that the audience of one program on for one hour, are relatively low compared to the cumulative audience of an entire network.

You do grasp that, don't you, FDISK?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 12, 2011, 01:35:24 pm
Doug Davis needs to retire.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 12, 2011, 01:37:01 pm
Doug Davis needs to retire.

I agree.... but that's a point you might want to make in another topic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 12, 2011, 01:45:01 pm
Maybe he can retire and run against Obama. He couldn't do worse than some of these Republicans that are running.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on June 13, 2011, 09:23:56 pm
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0611/empty_seats_108717af-a6fd-4c08-b970-fe9b3eb2e4c4.html

When he can't fill an auditorium in Miami you know he's in trouble. The bloom is off the rose.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: guest118 on June 14, 2011, 10:05:47 am
GREAT article in Time Magazine this week......"What Recovery"

Throws Nobama under the bus quite nicely.

Where did all the Economic tymulu money go?? Nobama wa suppoed to create jobs. NOPE.

This what happens when you elect an qualified person as President. A community is missing it's organizer.

Jimmy Carter #2!!!!!!!!!!! Exactly the same. A  blind monkey could beat Nobama at this point.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 14, 2011, 10:32:11 am
Since you were so vocal and certain he wouldn't get elected in the first place, your declaration doesn't comfort me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 14, 2011, 04:54:00 pm
Some headline writers are going overboard with this wiener thing.  Last night, for about an hour, CNN had the headline, Obama down on Wiener.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 14, 2011, 06:20:18 pm
Or this headline . . .

(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/epic-fail-photos-headline-faill.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 14, 2011, 06:28:48 pm
There's a new drink, the Obama.  Whatever you order, someone else pays for it, and there is no change.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 14, 2011, 09:06:35 pm
In a blow to Wisconsin's public employee unions, the state Supreme Court late Tuesday overturned a lower court's ruling that a committee of Republican lawmakers violated open meetings laws when they approved the budget repair bill that strips workers of most bargaining rights.

As of result of the ruling, all of the provisions of the bill will be put into place and previous rulings by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi, who struck down the legislation, are overturned.

In its ruling, the high court said the lower court "exceeded its jurisdiction, invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers...and erred in enjoining the publication and further implementation of the act."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 14, 2011, 10:32:30 pm
That's a pretty serious slap-down.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 14, 2011, 10:41:21 pm
Sumi is a typical judge our of the Peoples Republic of Madison.  The Supreme Court, for the first time in decades, is largely conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on June 15, 2011, 03:22:53 pm
The recall elections will be interesting. You know the unions are going to be throwing a lot of money around.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 15, 2011, 09:03:21 pm
One thing I'm still a little surprised about is how little support Tim Pawlenty continues to get in these Republican primary polls.  Everyone seems to think he's the only other "viable" candidate in the Republican field besides Romney, and yet there's another poll out today after the GOP debate where he's polling below 5%.  Herman Cain, who nobody's really heard of, keeps polling at 8-10% or more in some of these polls and polled 12% in this one.

I guess it still shouldn't be too surprising.  Pawlenty did not come off very well in the debate the other night, failing to follow through on his Obamneycare criticism he made the day before. 

His chances of winning the GOP nomination might be very overrated.  You'd think by now, he'd be polling a lot more consistently in second or third place, but he's still in the low single digits.  His name has definitely been out there more than Herman Cain's has, but he keeps trailing even him badly in most of the polls I've seen.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57085.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57085.html)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 15, 2011, 09:07:45 pm
Cain is vastly underrated.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2011, 10:59:12 pm
Pawlenty sort of presents himself like a dead fish.

Just not very exciting.

I suspect that Republicans would all support him and that he would get the Tea Party vote if he gets the nomination, but I'm not sure he would be his mother's first choice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 15, 2011, 11:26:21 pm
I agree.  His personality has prevented his being among the front runners, but very few have a problem with his policies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 17, 2011, 02:21:58 pm
CNN Headline, OBama hopes Wiener bounces back.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on June 17, 2011, 02:26:02 pm
CNN Headline, OBama hopes Wiener bounces back.

Usually takes about 20 minutes or so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on June 17, 2011, 02:36:40 pm
There's an app for that
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 17, 2011, 02:38:04 pm
Usually takes about 20 minutes or so.

Oh, to be young again.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 17, 2011, 03:08:57 pm
Here's a shocker: Wiener says he will run for President!  He's asked Eric Holder to be his running mate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 17, 2011, 05:00:40 pm
Do you have a link to the article?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2011, 05:37:36 pm
You're obviously younger than I am....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2011, 05:40:38 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

Imagine that... "climate researchers" padding the figures to make it appear sea levels are rising faster than they really are.  Who would have imagined something like this?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 17, 2011, 08:24:55 pm
Cain and Bachman seemed to be rather clear cut winners in the first two debates.  Neither are supported by the republican establishment, so neither are likely to go very far.  It should make things interesting, however.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 17, 2011, 08:41:05 pm
If Bachmann was a winner in the first debate, it was only because she wasn't there (though I admit she did quite well in New Hampshire), but I can't agree that Cain did very well in either.  He will appeal to about 10-15% of the Republican voters, but I can't see him getting above that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 17, 2011, 08:42:31 pm
P2, Wiener-Holder is still under covers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 17, 2011, 08:53:38 pm
I could see Bachman as a VP pick
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 17, 2011, 09:01:55 pm
Sorry.  I thought that was evident.  I will try it again.

Cain seemed to be the clear cut winner in the first debate, and Bachman seemed to be the clear cut winner in the second debate.

Neither are supported by the republican establishment, so neither are likely to go very far.  It should make things interesting, however.

Let me know if that passes the idiot test.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 17, 2011, 09:03:08 pm
She may have done well in the debates, but isn't she still as polarizing as Palin?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 17, 2011, 09:07:50 pm
Since the two major components of the republican party want diametrically different things, it would be hard for anyone to appeal to one side without making the other side unhappy.  The alternative, is another McCain, who will please neither side.

The gulf between those who want dramatically smaller government, and those who want the government to solve all their woes, has been growing over the past decade, and isn't likely to end until one side clearly wins.  That gulf is not only within the republican party, but within the electorate in general.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 28, 2011, 12:16:01 pm
California is building a new Golden Gate Bridge, because the old one is starting to fall apart.

The bridge is being built in China, and will be disassembled, shipped to California, and then reassembled. 

Building it in China will save the state half a billion dollars.

Why do they not build it in America?  Because the Davis-Bacon act requires government projects to be made by union workers, or others that are paid at union scale wages.

So the act that was passed to "save the unions" is resulting in thousands of jobs being shipped off to China.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 30, 2011, 12:49:13 pm
The Bay Bridge, not the Golden Gate.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on June 30, 2011, 12:51:19 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/30/columnist.obama/

what a d-k!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 30, 2011, 01:16:30 pm
Sorry.  Looked Golden to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on July 01, 2011, 09:26:47 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

Imagine that... "climate researchers" padding the figures to make it appear sea levels are rising faster than they really are.  Who would have imagined something like this>


LOL....so says Fox News and  LAWYER from the always unbiased Heartland Institute.  LOL

I have no idea if the sea level is rising, I suspect the Sea Level Research Group has very little idea....but I'm supposed to be confident a Lawyer does?

LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 01, 2011, 11:01:10 pm
Who suggested that you are supposed to be confident of anything?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on July 02, 2011, 10:40:11 am
Sea levels can't possibly be rising. I  clearly remember the Messiah telling us that when he is elected the sea levels would recede and the planet would begin to heal. He couldn't have been wrong...could he?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 02, 2011, 11:04:35 am
I hope we haven't come to the point where non-scientists are not allow to question or evaluate the LOGIC used and expressed by a scientist.

Sounds like big brother to me.

As far as the scientific "facts" are concerned, the scientists only addressed part of the facts.  It is true that the massive weight of the ice during the last ice age caused the tectonic plates to recede into the magma somewhat, and after the ice melted, the plate, along with the seashore began to rise.  It has been measured that the area around the northern part of Lake Michigan has been rising about two centimeters per decade.  It is also measured in Oslo, Norway, where the harbor has to be dredged every 20 years or so as the land rises relative to the sea.

But on the other hand, the land further south has been dropping relative to the sea, as the southern plates that were forced higher through the movement of the displaced magma now drop to a more normal level.  Thus, the shore is "rising" to the north, where the glaciers were, and dropping to the south, where the glaciers did not reach.  (the Netherlands have been sinking as Norway has been rising.  How much one thing offsets the other has not been studied or estimated as far as I know.

Apparent sea level changes happen all over the world because of plate techtonics.  The Mariana Islands have been sinking into the sea as the plate upon which it sits is slowly sinking under the plate upon which it sits sinks under the plate adjacent to it raises the Indonesian Islands out of the sea, (the interaction between the two plates causing earthquakes, just as the merging plates in California do.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2011, 11:23:21 am
Heresy to even ask the question.

YOU, Keysbear, are going to burn!!!!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on July 02, 2011, 11:26:34 am
I will be writing the White House and begging for forgiveness for my momentary lapse of reason. Wait...is that a knock at my door?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on July 02, 2011, 01:20:54 pm
"I hope we haven't come to the point where non-scientists are not allow to question or evaluate the LOGIC used and expressed by a scientist."

I haven't, have you?

My only point is, has it has always been, the "truth" is not going to determined in the court of public opinion. Relying on a lawyer for facts regarding possible global warming would be about the same as relying on a politician....like Al Gore, for instance.  Or like relying on computer guys or retired sugar hoarders.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on July 02, 2011, 01:23:45 pm
"Sea levels can't possibly be rising. I  clearly remember the Messiah telling us that when he is elected the sea levels would recede and the planet would begin to heal. He couldn't have been wrong...could he?"

I have zero idea, your faith, your question to answer. But it is analogous to the type of circular LOGIC used by ex-Vice Presidents.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: VJ on July 02, 2011, 01:31:56 pm
I thought Guam was going to capsize due to global warming.  Gotta pay my global carbon taxes to somebody.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 02, 2011, 01:55:35 pm
I have zero idea, your faith, your question to answer.

I would ask FDISK what he meant by that.... but he might actually try to explain.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on July 02, 2011, 02:06:28 pm
He obviously didn't hear that particular speech.


http://youtu.be/oQNkVmdicvA
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 02, 2011, 11:52:43 pm
"I hope we haven't come to the point where non-scientists are not allow to question or evaluate the LOGIC used and expressed by a scientist."

I haven't, have you?

Relying on a lawyer for facts regarding possible global warming would be about the same as relying on a politician....like Al Gore, for instance.  Or like relying on computer guys or retired sugar hoarders.

Of course, dismissing an opinion just because it comes from a lawyer is just as foolish as accepting an opinion just because it comes from a scientist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 03, 2011, 01:28:41 pm
"Employed by a Kenyan diplomat, Beatrice Oluoch followed her boss to America expecting to continue her comfortable nanny position at reasonable pay.
Instead, Oluoch says she was made to work 13-hour days, denied overtime pay and barred from leaving the house. She cooked and cleaned during the day and says she was on-call round-the-clock for her employer's two young children."

We just passed a regulation allowing diplomatic immunity to those on a diplomatic mission to stay in the country while they sue their employer for violating the laws of this country.  I don't understand this.  If diplomats are given immunity to our laws, they should not be given the protections of our laws, other than protection from acts of our own citizens.  In all other respects, they should be subject to the laws of their own land.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2011, 02:18:51 pm
Dave, I am not arguing your point, because I don't understand it.

Are you suggesting that there is some "protection of our law" that the Kenyan diplomat was enjoying which he should not have been?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 03, 2011, 02:45:38 pm
I'm sorry.  I must not have been clear.  I'll try again.

Those here on diplomatic passes are not subject to our laws when it comes to criminal actions.  For everything from murder to parking tickets, it is my understanding that they can not be prosecuted for breaking our laws.  Why, then, can they sue, or be sued in our civil courts?  It would seem to me that someone that comes her on a diplomatic passport should take any civil action they wish in their own courts, not in ours.

The same thing should apply to our diplomats and their staffs in foreign countries.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on July 03, 2011, 03:43:49 pm
Of course, dismissing an opinion just because it comes from a lawyer is just as foolish as accepting an opinion just because it comes from a scientist.
Nothing is that foolish.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 03, 2011, 07:16:03 pm
Those here on diplomatic passes are not subject to our laws when it comes to criminal actions.  For everything from murder to parking tickets, it is my understanding that they can not be prosecuted for breaking our laws.  Why, then, can they sue, or be sued in our civil courts?  It would seem to me that someone that comes her on a diplomatic passport should take any civil action they wish in their own courts, not in ours.  The same thing should apply to our diplomats and their staffs in foreign countries.

While I admit considerable ignorance in the area, is there some reason to believe that this is a meaningful problem facing the nation today?  Diplomats do enjoy special status, as something of the price of international relations, and with those who abuse that status able to be sent home.  Is it something worth revisiting to change the rules?  Perhaps, but, again, it simply doesn't impress me as an issue likely worth the time it would take to change them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 03, 2011, 08:53:19 pm
Actually, what brought the subject up is that we have just revisited the rules, and changed it to allow the law suits in civil courts.

But my point was not based upon harm to our country.  I was just pointing out that the new rule seems to me to be rather unfair and inconsistant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2011, 08:37:55 am
What an utter, total crock -- "global arming" stopped because what we told you was causing the warming continued. If ANYONE still needed evidence to show that the claims are a crock, this would be it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

At the very least, the very least, this illustrates that the alarmists have virtually no idea what they are talking about, that their claims and predictions have virtually no predictive value, and that if we gave them complete control of every aspect of the world economy, even if they are right they would most likely putz things up and make any problem worse because they do not understand how things work.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on July 05, 2011, 10:10:42 am
http://politics.standard.co.uk/2011/07/the-missing-us-ambassador-at-the-feast-for-ronald-reagan.html


another poke in the eye to conservatives...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2011, 11:36:00 am
Jes - I find the article very comforting.  It is nice to know that in the very off chance that man is causing the increase in global temperatures (which they agree, are not increasing), we now know that all we have to do to prevent it is take off the cleaners from our smokestacks.

Potential problem solved without government interference.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2011, 09:03:00 pm
Anyone out there know anything about DNA findings.

Specifically, if her father sired the child on his daughter Casey, would DNA evidence be able to prove that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2011, 09:07:04 pm
Also, what is the definition of "direct evidence" as opposed to "circumstantial evidence".  For instance, are finger prints found at the murder weapon considered circumstantial evidence?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2011, 09:26:44 pm
DNA testing will not always conclusively prove who the father is, but it generally does an excellent job of conclusively establishing that a person is NOT the father.  The FBI lab ruled out both Casey's father and brother.

Fingerprints on the murder weapon, or eyewitness testimony, or any evidence directly establishing the defendant's culpability, is direct evidence.  If you check outside your house before you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground and the next morning when you wake up there IS snow on the ground, but neither you nor anyone you talk to SAW the snow fall on the ground, that is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the snow fell when you were asleep.  It is not direct evidence.  Your seeing the snow there is direct evidence that the snow is there, but only circumstantial evidence as to how it got there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2011, 09:52:33 pm
Thanks, Jes.  By the way, do identical twins have identical fingerprints or identical DNA?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2011, 09:54:41 pm
Not sure about the DNA, but even if fingerprints were identical at birth minor scaring can change that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on July 06, 2011, 05:59:43 am
Identical twins have the exact same DNA.  I should know, I have two sets.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 06, 2011, 07:38:55 am
I should know, too.  I watch CSI!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 06, 2011, 08:25:53 am
Robb - You have two sets of DNA?

I have heard of extra chromosomes, but this seems rather strange.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on July 06, 2011, 09:02:19 am
You should be comfortable with strange all things considered.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 07, 2011, 03:39:22 pm
I think that we MUST raise the debt ceiling. 

Everyone knows that if you are driving 20 MPH over the speed limit and heading for a cliff, the proper solution is to raise the speed limit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 07, 2011, 03:40:55 pm
Might clear the sucker.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 07, 2011, 09:10:02 pm
"WASHINGTON -- Jurors are too divided to reach a verdict in the first U.S. case involving an undercover sting operation to catch bribery of foreign officials.
Last year 22 businessmen who sell military equipment were arrested at a Las Vegas trade show where they anticipated picking up checks for supplies they sent to outfit Gabon's presidential guard.
But no officials from the central African nation were really involved in the fake $15 million deal that included a $1.5 million "commission" to the defense minister. The contracts were staged by the FBI.
Four men on trial in the first prosecution said it wasn't clear the commission was illegal since the word bribe was never used. Prosecutors said Thursday after Judge Richard Leon declared a mistrial that they plan to retry the case."

You mean all I had to do was tell them it was a commission.  I got out of purchasing too soon.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: guest118 on July 08, 2011, 09:31:42 am
THANKS Nobama!!!! Brilliant!!!! All that spending AND NOTHING to show for it. One termer. Jimmy Carter #2.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.

The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May.

"The message on the economy is ongoing stagnation," said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision economics in New York. "Income growth is marginal so there's no indication of momentum.

U.S. stock index futures fell sharply on the data, while U.S. bond prices rose. The dollar rose against the euro.

The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported.

The report shattered expectations the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year. It could prompt calls for the Federal Reserve to consider further action to help the economy, but Fed officials have set a high bar.

The U.S. central bank wrapped up a $600 billion bond-buying program last week designed to spur lending and stimulate growth.

"This confirms our view that the Fed will continue to keep rates on hold into 2012 and if weak employment continues it will be pushed out even further," said Tom Porcelli, chief economist, RBC Capital Markets in New York.

Hopes were high that the economy was starting to find firmer ground as motor vehicle manufacturers ramped up production and gasoline prices descended from their lofty levels.

Economic activity in the first six months of the year was dampened by rising commodity prices and supply chain disruptions following Japan's devastating earthquake in March.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on July 08, 2011, 09:53:07 am
It might be worth Obama getting re-elected just to see Beerfan's meltdown.  I mean, none of the Republicans are especially inspiring anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on July 08, 2011, 10:46:23 am
Mark Bellhorn

(Sorry wrong topic)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on July 08, 2011, 10:58:06 am
It might be worth Obama getting re-elected just to see Beerfan's meltdown.  I mean, none of the Republicans are especially inspiring anyway.


I don't care about inspiring...give me competent. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: guest118 on July 08, 2011, 11:10:12 am
Jimmy Carter #2 wont be re-elected. The novelty has worn off.  People tend to forget he barely beat McCain (and McCain dd not want to be President) - he barely won Ohio. Nobama fans tend to think he won big - nope.

He really has not accomplished anything. The economy is now worse off than when he came into office. Gas prices are sky high again and that will kill the economy as well.

Socialism doesn;t work.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on July 08, 2011, 11:14:21 am
Jimmy Carter #2 wont be re-elected. The novelty has worn off.  People tend to forget he barely beat McCain (and McCain dd not want to be President) - he barely won Ohio. Nobama fans tend to think he won big - nope.

He really has not accomplished anything. The economy is now worse off than when he came into office. Gas prices are sky high again and that will kill the economy as well.

Socialism doesn;t work.

365 electoral votes is barely winning?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: guest118 on July 14, 2011, 07:09:18 pm
Has Nobama been impeached yet????

Where did all that stymulus money go??? Hmmmmmm????


Great to see the economy doing so well!!! NOPE. Blame Bush!!!! hahahahaha.

Nobama barely won the last election. No chance this coming election. The novelty is over.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 14, 2011, 07:34:02 pm
Funny, I thought Beerfan the Clown assured us he wouldn't win the last election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 14, 2011, 08:39:25 pm
Nobama barely won the last election.

Barely?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 15, 2011, 10:12:01 pm
"Prior to his death earlier this year, Osama bin Laden was exploring plans to target President Barack Obama on the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, according to multiple reports.

A raid of bin Laden's Pakistan compound in May reportedly turned up documents showing that the al Qaeda leader had his sight set on attacking the president. CBS News reports:"

I KNEW bin Laden was a Republican.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 16, 2011, 12:17:15 pm
I went to McDonalds today, and they were so busy that when someone placed their order at the drive in window, they had them move up and park until they could bring them the food.  The guy bringing it was the manager, a big black man who was laughing and joking with the customers.  As he walked in front of one of the cars, the driver's foot must have slipped and the car lurched forward a couple of feet.  She leaned out of the window and started to apologize profusely.

He just grinned at her and said "don't you worry about it, ma'am.  I'm 28 years old and this is the best job I can get.  Running me over would be a blessing".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 17, 2011, 05:00:30 pm
Herman Cain just destroyed his chances of winning the nomination.  On Fox News Sunday, he stated that any community should be able to prevent a Muslim Mosque being built in their community because the Muslim religion has both religious and political aspects.

That won't hold with even most of the religious right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 17, 2011, 05:17:03 pm
Oh, Dave, mail.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2011, 05:24:51 pm
Actually, a lot of folks on the religious right would love that idea.... but I was listening to the interview (sort of... it was on and and heard the voices) and I didn't hear that.  It's on again now, and Cain's interview is on, so I will listen closer this time.... if I have not already missed it.  I do recall him mentioning something about the folks in Murfreesboro....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 17, 2011, 05:33:10 pm
I replayed it several times on TIVO just to be sure I got it right.  It is what he said, almost word for word, although there were a lot of other words surrounding it to disguise it.

I am a member of the religious right, and I doubt that 1 in 20 would agree with that statement.  Those that don't, get most of the press, but it is not a prevailing opinion among the group.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2011, 05:41:22 pm
Yea, I apologize for doubting you.  Wallace did a good job of pinning him down, and Cain finally did make clear that he believes local communities should be free to prohibit Moslems (though no other religions.... at the moment) from building houses of worship.  And given that belief, and his apparent feeling it is important, I suspect that he would look for judicial appointments to share that looney line of thought, and THAT would be downright frightening.  I would rather Obama win re-election than have the judicial appointments that would produce.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 17, 2011, 05:48:17 pm
I doubt that he could FIND judicial appointments that would share that line of thinking.  As I said before, my experience with the christian right is quite extensive, and I know very few that would go along with that opinion.  The Christian right is extremely sensitive on the subject of religious persecution, and that would be about a blatant a persecution as we could get in this day and age.

That is why I think Cain lost his one chance to win the nomination, seeking a union between the business community and the religious right.  He will lose substantial credibility in both groups.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2011, 06:00:29 pm
Dave, he could find them.  They are out there.  And if Cain were elected, it would almost certainly be with the Republicans taking the Senate and they would approve pretty much anyone he nominated... and the only nominees who would think that way would be dangerous loons.  If Cain gets the nomination, I suspect he would win the election, and I would hope that before the general election some adviser would sit down with him to explain to him a bit about the law and the Constitution, which he likes to cite, but which he appears not to understand.  So he might well "clarify" his position, but right now that is simply not acceptable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 17, 2011, 06:34:13 pm
Fortunately, I think today he killed the extremely small chance he already had to win the nomination.

I still hope Perry gets in the race.  He can draw the establishment republicans, and will also satisfy the tea partiers that will probably determine who wins the nomination.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 17, 2011, 06:49:24 pm
I heard on FOX that Perry today said he was getting closer to running because God had been talking to him and was telling him it was the thing to do.

I ain't makin' this sh*t up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 17, 2011, 06:53:57 pm
I'm not so sure, Dave, that all far right religious conservatives would disagree with him.  Many conservatives, including Mormons, view Muslims with suspicion.  Thing I hear the most often?  They consider it an honor to lie to a non-Muslim.  That's chilling.  How can you trust the word of someone who thinks it is Allah's will that they lie to infidels?

So, I'm not sure which far right you're talking about.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 17, 2011, 08:18:43 pm
I'm not so sure, Dave, that all far right religious conservatives would disagree with him.  Many conservatives, including Mormons, view Muslims with suspicion.  Thing I hear the most often?  They consider it an honor to lie to a non-Muslim.  That's chilling.  How can you trust the word of someone who thinks it is Allah's will that they lie to infidels?

I'm not sure of your point, Curt.  Many Mormans view many non-Mormans with suspicion.  I remember a couple of years ago Robb said he couldn't have voted for Huckleby if he was nominated.  Many non-Mormans view Mormans with suspicion.  I am sure that some refused to vote for Romney when he ran.

But I have never heard anyone in the religious right say that it should be illegal for a religion to build a church in a community, other than the wingnuts that got upset about the mosque near the 9/11 site.

I am not saying that there are no wingnuts on the right side of the political spectrum.  There are about as many as there are on the left side of the spectrum.  But I think you will find very few who actually would agree that a community should have the legal right to prevent a mosque (or mormon temple, or buddhist temple or Jewish synagogue) in their neighborhood.  The wingnuts get the press, but they are almost always far outside the norm for either political movement

In my opinion, what Robb believes is wrong.  In Robb's opinion, what I believe is wrong.  But I doubt that either of us wants to take it to court.

We probably both agree, however, that Lutherans (with the possible exception of the Missouri synod), should have no rights at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 18, 2011, 01:31:51 pm
I can see why Obama is so reluctant to cut spending.  It is hard to find any government spending that isn't absolutely necessary.

"The federal government helped fund a study that examined what effect a gay man's **** size has on his sex life and general well-being.
The study was among several backed by the National Institutes of Health that have come under scrutiny from a group claiming the agency is wasting valuable tax dollars at a time when the country is trying to control its debt. This particular research resulted in a 2009 report titled, "The Association Between **** Size and Sexual Health Among Men Who Have Sex with Men."

The study reported, among its findings, that gay men with "below average penises" were more likely to assume a "bottom" sexual position, while those with "above average penises" were more likely to assume a "top" sexual position. Those with average penises identified themselves as "versatile" in the bedroom.
Though it's difficult to trace exactly how much federal funding went to the project, the study was one of many linked to an $899,769 grant in 2006. The grant was administered by NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, and went first to a group called Public Health Solutions and a researcher with the National Development and Research Institutes before going to individual researchers.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/18/nih-backed-study-examined-effects-****-size-in-gay-community/#ixzz1STzvoNtz
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on July 18, 2011, 02:11:07 pm
What about Lesbian women?

Mainly HAWT ones...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on July 18, 2011, 02:29:11 pm
I'm surprised the size of someone's g amble would be much of a factor in gay sex.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 18, 2011, 03:47:09 pm
I often get discouraged at the abysmal ignorance of the typical american when it comes to economics and markets.  But there are several advertisements playing on TV that almost cause me to tear my hair out.

The Ad, by several different companies, advertise that they will sell gold for only 1 % over their dealer cost.  They go on to tell how foolish it is to buy from dealers who sell gold for as much as 30 % over their dealer cost.  The ads have been on the air for so long that there must be a substantial number of people that believe it is a good deal.

What does the price the dealer paid for gold have to do with the current sale price?  Gold cost about 300 dollars per ounce 20 years ago.  It cost 1600 dollars per ounce yesterday. 

Suppose that the price next month is 1500.  You have two choices;

a. buy from someone who bought years ago at 300 who now sells at 1500, which is 500 % over the dealer cost, or

b. buy from someone who bought yesterday at 1500, and now sells at 1616, which is 1 % over the dealer cost?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 18, 2011, 04:37:31 pm
Yes, but when Dr. Brown takes you back twenty years with your gold just think of how much...oh, wait...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: VJ on July 18, 2011, 04:46:05 pm
I'd rather take back a copy or three of the Gray's Sports Almanac 2011-2050 myself.  Prep yourself for that eventual Cubbie World Series win and ease the pain from the other worthless seasons ahead. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on July 19, 2011, 04:19:11 am
I'm not sure of your point, Curt.  Many Mormans view many non-Mormans with suspicion.  I remember a couple of years ago Robb said he couldn't have voted for Huckleby if he was nominated.  Many non-Mormans view Mormans with suspicion.  I am sure that some refused to vote for Romney when he ran.

But I have never heard anyone in the religious right say that it should be illegal for a religion to build a churchu in a community, other than the wingnuts that got upset about the mosque near the 9/11 site.

I am not saying that there are no wingnuts on the right side of the political spectrum.  There are about as many as there are on the left side of the spectrum.  But I think you will find very few who actually would agree that a community should have the legal right to prevent a mosque (or mormon temple, or buddhist temple
. My problem with the Huckster had nothing to do with his religion, it had everything to do with his religious bigotry and playing the religion card to win Iowa.  Mormons are not inherently distrustful of non-mormons,  just those who rip on our beliefs for political gain.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2011, 06:46:41 am
The word "distrust-ful" gets censored?  That's worse than gam-ble.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on July 19, 2011, 07:00:31 am
Apparently S T F U can't be consecutive letters in anything.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 19, 2011, 07:15:40 am
s-t-f-u is censored in the middle of a word?  That's hilarious.

Robb, my whole point to Dave was that there are many denominations leary of Muslims to the point that they would support what Cain said.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on July 19, 2011, 07:48:36 am
Curt, I believe my response wad from Dave's quote. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 19, 2011, 07:50:05 am
Yes, I know.  We aren't arguing.  :)  Bad wording on my part.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 19, 2011, 11:46:19 am
And non-Mormans are not distru****l of Mormons. 

For the most part. 

But when I lived in Ogden, I came across some Mormans that were prejudiced against non-Mormans, and I am sure that you have come across some from the other end of the spectrum.

But you are playing with words when you say that you were only against his bigotry.  What you call bigotry, he felt was his core religious beliefs.  I don't know enough about him or you to know what you disliked about him, but from the point of view of an outsider, your statements sure sounded like you objected to things he had said and done in connection with his religion.  You never mentioned anything he had done as Governor of Arkansas that you felt was bad.  Only those done by his religious group, and by extension, him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 19, 2011, 03:56:06 pm
According to a new report by the Heritage Foundation

99% of poor families have a refrigerator

81.46& have a microwave

78.3% have air conditioning

63.7% have cable or satellite TV

54.5% have cell phones

48.6% have a coffee maker

38.2% have a computer

32.3% have more than two TVs

25% have a dishwasher

But they are still considered poor, and we are told that the poor have been falling behind over the past decades
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on July 19, 2011, 04:07:29 pm
I wonder how this might affect Bachmann's chances of winning the nomination or competing in a general election against Obama.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/stress-related-condition-incapacitates-bachmann-heavy-pill-use-alleged/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/stress-related-condition-incapacitates-bachmann-heavy-pill-use-alleged/)
 
How bad would it look for Bachmann if she's canceling a stump speech once a week because of migraines, for instance?  Or if a bad migraine comes on during a speech?
 
Have there been any major presidential candidates who have dealt with migraines and major anxiety like that before?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on July 19, 2011, 04:15:08 pm
What should affect Bachmann's (and several other candidates') chances of winning is their signing of that ridiculous Family Leader pledge a couple weeks ago.  Romney moved up a lot in my mind when he refused to sign it and pretty much said it was terrible.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 19, 2011, 04:16:48 pm
What pledge was that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 19, 2011, 04:23:20 pm
JR, think about a Senator from Missouri, Eagleson, Eagleton?  Something like that.

br, hard for me to equate a condition that would disable a person for periods of time with a silly pledge.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on July 19, 2011, 04:28:36 pm
I have to go jump on a conference call for half an hour or so, but I'll locate the pledge and post it after that.


Bottom line, it was very racially insensitive, and the main point was that they were going to make morality into law on issues where government really shouldn't be involved.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on July 19, 2011, 04:30:40 pm
And I don't mean to equate a disability with the pledge, Curt...just stating that she and Santorum pretty much ensured I would not vote for them because their extremely conservative religion is too closely related to their politics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on July 19, 2011, 05:51:21 pm
Here is the pledge as it originally appeared when signed by Bachmann and Santorum.  It has some good parts (commitment to ending human trafficking, reducing the size of the government, etc.).  But I strongly disagree with their focus on denying rights to homosexual people (marriage, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, etc).  I also think it shows a certain amount of hypocrisy by arguing that freedom of speech and religion need to be maintained while simultaneously condemning the free speech (pornography) and free religion (the "Shariah Islam" boogeyman) that they don't like.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59611653/Family-Leader-Pledge

Of course, all of that is typical far right religious stuff that I can ignore and get around if I agree with them otherwise...giving rights to homosexual people is out of the bag, and it's going to happen over the next decade or so whether they like it or not.  But I can't ignore this quote:

Quote
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‘s first African-American President.

Anyone who is ignorant enough to think it's okay to sign a pledge that implies there was any kind of upside to slavery should not be our president.  (I should also add that the statement is so clearly not true, given that those children would've been considered property that could have been sold out from under their parents at any time)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 19, 2011, 07:32:47 pm
I didn't read the pledge, because I didn't want to install more crap on my computer, But I don't feel the same way about the portion you quoted above.

I think it it time we restored some sanity to the public discourse, and am sick and tired of being afraid that telling the truth is bad if it hurts someone's feelings, or if someone is wrongly offended by it.

The statement is both accurate and truthful.  One of the most injurious things that happened to the black population of america is the welfare system that we instituted in the 60s that encouraged single parent households in the black population.  As evil as slavery was, the vast majority of black families were kept intact during the period when slavery was legal.  Trying to pretend it wasn't so is, I believe, not only a cop out, but an unnecessary distortion.  It is possible to tell the other side of the story without implying that the other side was acceptable.

There is another side to things that should be told along with the bad side.  Like it or not, poor blacks living in the ghettos of america today are much better off materially than the vast majority of the descendants of the ancestors left behind in Nigeria, the Ivory Coast or Cameroon.  That doesn't justify slavery.  But it is true none the less.  If we are unwilling to tell the truth, we have lost the battle.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 21, 2011, 07:13:39 pm
Davep

Your a freaking racist moron if you think a system of slavery was better than 1960's welfare. I suppose the next argument is to assert jim crow laws as worse than affirmative action laws.

Your a moron.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on July 21, 2011, 07:20:51 pm
Your a moron.

Excellent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 21, 2011, 08:14:24 pm
Davep

Your a freaking racist moron if you think a system of slavery was better than 1960's welfare. I suppose the next argument is to assert jim crow laws as worse than affirmative action laws.

Your a moron.

Try to concentrate, Oddo.  I didn't say slavery was better than welfare.  I said that he was right in saying that a child born into slavery had a better chance in being raised in a two parent household than one born into the welfare system today.  You were the one that drew idiotic conclusions.

Do you disagree with the statement above?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 21, 2011, 08:38:10 pm
Using slavery is an automatic hot button word for the "other side" to overreact and not comprehend the point.  I think I would probably do the same thing, but Dave is correct in what was intended.

I guess saying that black families were more likely to have two parents in 1835 than in the 2010 welfare state might be too complicated for some.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on July 21, 2011, 08:41:46 pm
Otto is an idiot, for those of you who have never met him.

He doesn't pay his bills, either...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 21, 2011, 08:46:56 pm
I guess saying that black families were more likely to have two parents in 1835 than in the 2010 welfare state might be too complicated for some.

Only those educated in the Wisconsin Public School System.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on July 21, 2011, 09:31:30 pm
Educated is too strong a word for that buffoon...perhaps you should refer to him as having "attended" instead?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 21, 2011, 09:46:31 pm
No.  The scary thing is that he is probably as educated as they get in the Madison area.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2011, 10:04:27 am
Davep

Your a freaking racist moron if you think a system of slavery was better than 1960's welfare. I suppose the next argument is to assert jim crow laws as worse than affirmative action laws.

Your a moron.

As others have already said, otto, you are an idiot, and appear to have problesm with reading comprehension.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2011, 10:07:56 am
But you are playing with words when you say that you were only against his bigotry.  What you call bigotry, he felt was his core religious beliefs.

Talk about "playing with words".... saying something is part of your "core religious beliefs" does not mean it is any less bigoted.  There are plenty of churches which preach racial hatred.  The fact that such racial hatred is part of their "core religious beliefs" does not leave it free from bigotry.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 23, 2011, 11:51:23 am
Those were not the facts of the discussion, Jes.  Hatred is not a part of any religion that I know of.  (There are Cubs fans that hate the White Sox, but hatred is not necessarily part of fandom).

If I believe that Jesus is God, and you believe that Jesus is not God, we have different core beliefs.  "If I say that you are wrong, and you say that I am wrong, neither of us are guilty of bigotry.  And if either of us hates the other, that is due to a failing in ourselves, not in our religions.

On the other hand, if I say that I will not vote for you for a government office because of your religion, THEN, I am guilty of bigotry.  Not hatred.  Bigotry.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 24, 2011, 12:08:31 pm
The media is really worthless.   Some media outlets may be less useless than others, but all are useless.

I have watched the various outlets, both liberal and conservative, and have heard just about every plan for staving off default.

Except the one that would work.

The Federal Reserve owns hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities.

The Social Security Trust Fund owns 2.6 TRILLION dollars of government securities.

These securities are already part of our total national debt.

On August 3, the treasury is no longer able to sell any NEW government debt securities.  But they CAN sell off the bonds in the SS trust fund, and they CAN sell off the bonds owned by the Federal Reserve.  Selling 163 billion of these securities would give us enough cash to meet our shortfall without increasing the national debt by a penny.

And not a word of it by the hundreds of pundits, politicians or wise men on the networks.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 26, 2011, 10:11:27 am
Dave, that approach would only delay dates of reconning and nothing more.  Selling such debt to creditors would still leave us owing that debt... and would more directly force Congress to admit that they have been usinig Social Security as a slush fund for more than 70 years, admitting that there is NOTHING in there to pay beneficiaries and future beneficiaries what they are owed.  That is not an admission they want to make.... and when it would still leave that debt owed, there is little it would actually accomplish.

Now there IS an approach similar to that which I have suggested in the past and which you have not seemed to like -- sell off OTHER federal assets.

Sell off all of the airwave frequency rights for PBS stations.  Sell off the National Weather Service.  Sell off mineral rights (not LEASING them, but SELLING them), and, most importantly, sell off federal land.

In much of the west the federal government owns more than a third of the states, and does very little to nothing with most of that land.  Sell it off.  Pocket the sale price to pay down debt and reduce the deficit.  And enjoy the future increased tax revenue resulting from the increased economic activity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 26, 2011, 03:38:11 pm
Jes - my point was that when Obama says that he CAN NOT promise that there will be money to send out SS checks after August 3, he is lying.

I did not say, or mean to imply, that the government could do this forever.  But they could certainly do it for the next year or so without running out of money to send out SS checks.  That was the philosophy behind the silly "lock box", but it WOULD extend the imaginary deadline by quite a while.  The government does NOT have to sell NEW bonds in order to bring in the money to pay SS.

They would still have to cut spending somewhere, but it does NOT have to be in Social Security.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2011, 12:15:17 pm
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
By James Taylor | Forbes - 19 hrs ago

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.



"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 28, 2011, 04:25:59 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

I can just here Gomer Pyle saying, "Surprise!  Surprise!  Surprise!"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U

APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation

By BECKY BOHRER - Associated Press | AP –

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
While it wasn't clear what the exact allegations are, a government watchdog group representing Anchorage-based scientist Charles Monnett said investigators have focused on his 2006 journal article about the bears that garnered worldwide attention.
The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on Monnett's behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
BOEMRE told Monnett on July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending an investigation into "integrity issues." The investigator has not yet told him of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director.
A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, acknowledged there was an "ongoing internal investigation" but declined to get into specifics about it.
Whatever the outcome or the nature of the allegations, the investigation could fuel the ongoing fight between climate change activists and those who are skeptical of scientists' findings about global warming. The probe also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, could not speak directly to Monnett's case but said he believes the public has a right to be skeptical about scientific claims related to global warming.
Even if every scientist is objective, "what we're being asked to do is turn our economy around and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on the basis of claims about what's going to happen to the climate," he said, adding later: "If global warming really takes hold here in the next few years and bad things start to happen, then we can act. But right now, I think we should just be sitting on our hands, observing."
The complaint seeks Monnett's reinstatement and a public apology from the agency and inspector general, whose office is conducting the probe. The group's filing also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out quickly and fairly, as the Obama policy states.
BOEMRE has barred Monnett from speaking to reporters, Ruch said.
Monnett could not immediately be reached Thursday.
His wife, a fellow scientist, Lisa Rotterman, who answered the phone at their home, said the case did not come out of the blue, that Monnett had come under fire in the past within the agency for speaking the truth about what the science showed, and she feared what happened to him would send a "chilling message" within the agency at a time when important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.
BOEMRE was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling. The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests.
Monnett, who has coordinated much of BOEMRE's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint. Schwartz, who's based in Washington, D.C., said other agency scientists would manage the studies in Monnett's absence.
According to documents provided by Ruch's group, which sat in on investigators interviews with Monnett, the questioning focused on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004.
At the time, they were conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, and saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology.
In the peer-reviewed article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water.
Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."
The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement. Former vice president and climate change activist Al Gore mentioned the animal in his Oscar-winning global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
The complaint said agency officials harassed Gleason and Monnett, and that they received negative comments after the journal article. Gleason took another Interior Department job; he didn't respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn't be available for comment.
In May 2008, the polar bear was classified as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.
Since then, the fight between climate change activists and skeptics has intensified. In 2009, skeptics seized on some 1,000 stolen emails that showed prominent scientists stonewalling critics and discussing ways to keep opponents research out of peer-reviewed journals.
They claimed the emails as proof that the global warming threat was hyped. Several reviews have since vindicated the researchers' science, although some of their practices — in particular efforts to hide data from critics — were criticized.
Ruch said that criminal investigators with no scientific background are handling Monnett's case, even though it is an administrative matter.
According to a transcript, provided by Ruch's group, Ruch asked investigator Eric May, during questioning of Monnett in February, for specifics about the allegations. May replied: "well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations."
Monnett said that alleging scientific misconduct "suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure don't see any indication of that in what you're asking me about."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on July 29, 2011, 07:56:24 am
Interesting set of thoughts on the current debt ceiling crisis:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/29/elders.debt.crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 29, 2011, 08:15:32 am
Interesting thoughts?

Spector, AN ATTORNEY, saying that if he were president he would use the 14th Amendment to "unilaterally raise the debt limit."  The argument that the 14th Amendment would allow this is absurd, and has NO legal scholarship, history, or court decisions supporting it.  It is an argument sucked out of thin air by liberals this year looking for a way to allow Obama to ignore the debt limit.  It is an absurd legal position, and should produce Obama's impeachment if he tries it.  (The Senate would likely refuse to remove him, but it certainly should bring the impeachment by the House.)

Stockman is right in pointing out that Republicans have offered no suggestion to cut military spending, and they should.  We need to pack things up in Iraq and Afghanistan, shutter most of our bases overseas (except for some groundskeepers and maintenance crews on a few strategic bases we would actually want to maintain if needed in the future), and cut our defense spending about in half.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 29, 2011, 02:50:20 pm
The man calling himself a fundamentalist Morman (NOT a part of the LDS Church) who is on trial for sexual assault of two underaged children (both being married to him), claims that the Government is interfering with his constitutional right to follow the religion of his choice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on July 29, 2011, 02:53:34 pm
cut military spending?

Too many PACs involved in campaign support...

It's all about the politic$
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2011, 07:24:51 am
Boy this sounds familiar..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/summer-tv-press-tour-2011-what-harry-belafonte-would-ask-congress-about-the-debt-crisis/2011/07/28/gIQATPK7gI_blog.html

Summer TV Press Tour 2011: What Harry Belafonte would ask Congress about the debt crisis
By Lisa de Moraes

Singer Harry Belafonte, subject of an upcoming HBO documentary about his political activism, was asked what he would say to the White House and Congress about the gamesmanship in which they are engaged over the national debt.

“My question would be, to Congress and the president: What happened to moral truth? What happened to moral courage?” Belafonte said.

He’d also like to tell them: “Politics without moral purpose, really more often than not, winds up as tyranny.”

“Barack Obama and his mission has failed because it lacked a certain kind of moral courage, a kind of moral vision . . . a kind of courage we are in need of,” said the King of Calypso.

“When he said ‘Yes, we can,’ it was politically clever, but he never defined what it is we can do. So we filled in those spaces — what we thought he meant — only to find we were disappointed, because none of those points was satisfied.”
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2011, 07:26:42 am
But Obama really doesn't have to worry.  I mean the guy is one of the greatest communicators of all time and had tremendous powers of persuasion.  http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2011/07/29/2011-07-29_bams_spam_president_barack_obama_takes_debt_battle_to_twitter_loses_more_than_20.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on July 30, 2011, 04:32:34 pm
Would love to see Connie Mack's Penny plan enacted.  Balanced budget by 2018.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2011, 05:25:37 pm
It needs to be balanced now.

Not gradually over 7 years.  Now present Congress can bind the hands (or limit the spending) of any future Congress, meaning the plan being proposed to limit spending increases for several years until economic growth (assuming Obama is out of office and we again see economic growth) produces revenue increases which catch up to spending is a plan which only works if you can rely on fiscal restraint from Congress for that entire period.

That is like expecting a drunk to stop drinking because he promises he will.... even as he continues to go to a bar every evening where they give him free drinks.

Actually, it is worse.

One drunk might actually have that willpower, but with Congress you will have NEW drunks entering the scene to be expected to keep that same pledge.

The spending cuts need to happen now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on July 30, 2011, 06:09:17 pm
GL with that. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 30, 2011, 06:16:16 pm
That is the problem with all these bills being presented by both sides.

We need to pass a bill that actually cancels programs.  It is not enough to say that we agree that future Congresses should cut spending.  Nor is it enough to merely defund a program, and leave it on the books.  It is too easy for future congresses to refund them by adding them to a defense bill that the other side wants to get.

In the last analysis, only a constitutional amendment will do the job, and that isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2011, 06:41:35 pm
A constitutional amendment would be a disaster.

It would unintentionally, but ultimately nonetheless, end up giving control of the budget, and perhaps even of taxation, to the Federal courts, made up of judges who are on the bench for life.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 30, 2011, 07:08:52 pm
What kind of constitutional amendment do you envision, that would do that?

I would envision one that would cap total federal taxation at a % of GDP, and not allow congress to pass any law that would put spending higher than the projected income.

Since it is necessary to use projected GDP, any overspending in one year would require a cut in spending in the following year.

For instance, if projected GDP for 2013 and 2014 is 10 trillion dollars, and the cap is 20%, then congress could pass no law that requires expenditures in 2013 of more than 2 trillion dollars.  If the actual GDP for 2013 turns out to be only 9 trillion dollars, then in 2014, congress can only pass laws that require expenditures of 1.9 trillion dollars (20% of the 2014 projection minus the overspending for the year 2013.  If you really want to make it work, you can add the clause that in any year following an unbalanced budget, congress gets no pay, nor does that year count towards their retirement.

Exceptions can be made for wars actually declared by congress.

Each year, the budget would use zero based budgeting, and no portion of the budget would go into effect until the entire budget was passed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2011, 07:18:29 pm
Dave, I haven't seen the language of any amendment being floated at the moment, and I am betting most members of Congress have not either, but the language I have seen in the past would ultimately leave the courts in the position of determining whether spending was or wasn't in compliance, and if it was not what would have to be cut.  It would give an absurd amount of power to the courts.

In the one you say you "would envision," the question of how you determine GDP, and the scoring of any spending plan would be open to very wide ranges of interpretation.  Then there is the question of who is doing the projecting of income, and what GDP growth (or contraction) would be expected.

It sounds good... until you actually get down to the real nuts and bolts of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.

It would be an utter nightmare, with decisions made by lawyers, accountants and judges instead of legislators.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 30, 2011, 07:21:42 pm
The projections would certainly be subject to interpretation, but the actual figures would not be.

A balanced budget amendment might not work, but we know for certain that NOTHING ELSE WILL.  As was said almost 200 years ago, a democracy can only work until the voters find out that they can vote themselves money out of the public purse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2011, 07:23:00 pm
No, Dave, even the figures would be.  Accountants can do wonders with what is or isn't spending and when that spending will be taking place.

A balanced budget amendment would be worse than what we now have.  THAT is how bad it would be.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 30, 2011, 08:15:00 pm
Actually, the computation for US GDP is quite standard, and can be easily tracked and accounted for.  The amendment can state that they can not change the computation without a two thirds majority of both houses.

It is easy to pick it apart, but I have come to the conclusion that there is NO other solution.  We need to do it the best we can.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on July 30, 2011, 08:17:28 pm
Congress needs to display the leadership to enact sensible budgets.  I don't see what it has to do with the Constitution.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 30, 2011, 08:39:13 pm
Dave, you and I both agree that we need to do the best we can.

We simply disagree as to what that is.

And computation of GDP is quite standard when you are talking about calculating what it WAS.  It is nothing remotely close to standard when you are talking about projecting what it WILL be.

Even in calculating what it WAS, you just this week had the GDP numbers for the first quarter of this year sharply reduced as a result of re-calculation.

Additionally, the language of most of them suspend the requirements "in time of war."  And, of course, we have been waging "War on Terror" for more than 9 years now.  And a "War on Drugs" for 30 years.  And we still haven't declared an end to the "War on Poverty."  Yes.  I know none of those were declared wars.  Any question about whether they would be?

Perhaps it is possible to draft language which would work.  So far, none of the language I have seen in any of the proposed amendments would.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 30, 2011, 09:03:04 pm
And computation of GDP is quite standard when you are talking about calculating what it WAS.  It is nothing remotely close to standard when you are talking about projecting what it WILL be.

True.  That is why I mentioned penalties when the projections prove too high.

And also, as I mentioned, the war exceptions would only come into play for wars actually declared by congress, and require that exact language.  That would leave out every conflict since WWII,
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2011, 10:33:06 am
Dave, that
True.  That is why I mentioned penalties when the projections prove too high.

And what do you do to the members of Congress who are gone when the projections prove too high?  Or to the members who remain but voted against either the projections or the spending?

ANY such plan would essentially require the Courts to enforce it, and that would be a tremendous mistake.


And also, as I mentioned, the war exceptions would only come into play for wars actually declared by congress, and require that exact language.  That would leave out every conflict since WWII,

And you think Congress would have any hesitation to DECLARE wars on drugs or poverty or terrorism or some small nation which could be our "enemy" without any consequence.... other than letting them avoid the Balanced Budget limitations?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 31, 2011, 11:35:31 am
The penalties kick in the very next year.  There is NO turnover every other year, and even in the house, the turnover is extremely light every other year.  And, of course, Senators are there for 6 years.

But the important penalties are on the budget, not on the individuals.  If the projections are too low this year, it comes out of next year's budget.

The various "wars" on poverty, terrorism, etc have been media objects, not legal objects.  No president has ever used his war powers in such cases.  They have been strictly been publicity campaigns.  When he used combat force in Iraq, he received a resolution to use military force, as he did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait, an as Johnson did in Viet Nam.

The balanced Budget amendment will not work perfectly.  I doubt that you can point to any clause that has worked perfectly, at least as the writers meant them to work.  But it is hard to see how it can make things worse if done correctly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2011, 12:11:45 pm
The penalties kick in the very next year.  There is NO turnover every other year, and even in the house, the turnover is extremely light every other year.  And, of course, Senators are there for 6 years.

Which means House terms would be up either the year after the vote (when the penalty would kick in) or two years after.  And for most of the folks serving, they really are not dependent on their Congressional salaries.  Your suggestion would increase the likelihood we would have those serving being limited to the wealthy who would not particularly care about such penalties.

But the important penalties are on the budget, not on the individuals.  If the projections are too low this year, it comes out of next year's budget.

Which will only urge those in Congress to cry and whine and declare war.

The various "wars" on poverty, terrorism, etc have been media objects, not legal objects.  No president has ever used his war powers in such cases.

Really?  Have you read the Patriot Act?  Bush and Obama have both used it, and the Constitutional violations in it are "justified" by being at war.

You want it in the form of a formal declaration?  It would take Congress about 15 minutes once they realized that was the way to avoid the spending limits.



The balanced Budget amendment will not work perfectly.  I doubt that you can point to any clause that has worked perfectly, at least as the writers meant them to work.  But it is hard to see how it can make things worse if done correctly.

Let me try to explain how it would make things worse.

1) It would encourage perpetual states of declared war, which would then include all of the associated limitations on other Constitutional rights which the Courts have tolerated in the past.

2) It would give more power to federal judges, who hold office for life.  That power would include the power to block spending a judge did not like, and to allow spending the judge did like. 

The versions now floating around Congress also have other problems, but those two are present in virtually any of the plans.

You want to amend the Constitution in a manner which would effectively limit spending?  Make two changes.

A) No longer allow Congress to borrow money.

B) No longer allow the Federal Government to print money.

Those two changes would limit expenditures to the amount of government revenues, or to matters for which folks agreed to accept payment sometime in the indefinite future.  They would essentially force Congress to balance the budget.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: VJ on July 31, 2011, 12:20:41 pm
B) No longer allow the Federal Government to print money.

Who's printing the money?  The treasury department or the Federal Reserve?

California has a balanced budget amendment, no?  Is the failure of California relevant to the implications of a balanced budget amendment on the federal level?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2011, 01:04:44 pm
Who's printing the money?  The treasury department or the Federal Reserve?

A bit of both, but the Fed is a creation of Congress and exists and functions only so long as Congress allows.  The Fed can in fact print money.  Treasury can effectively do the same thing without operating a printing press when it reduces reserve requirements for banks (significantly increasing the money the banks are allowed to lend) or by buying Treasury notes.

California has a balanced budget amendment, no?  Is the failure of California relevant to the implications of a balanced budget amendment on the federal level?

Most states are required under their state constitutions to balance their budgets (or required to do so by legislation).  I don't know which is the case in California.  And no, the failure (or success) of California (or any other state) in dealing with balanced budget requirements would not be particularly relevant in looking at the issue on the federal level (other than to serve as examples of how the judiciary would likely end up with much more power).  The reason the state experiences are not particularly relevant is because the states can not print money, and because the wording of the limiting language is rather important, as is the framework in which that language exists.

Folks hear "balanced budget amendment," and they think there is some magic to the words, that all proposals for a "balanced budget amendment" are the same.  And the folks who think that are wrong.  The wording and framework of such proposals amount to the plan and structure of a house.

You may want a house.  But that does not mean all houses are the same, or that you would want to live in all of them.  There are a great many houses you would be very miserable living in and where you would actually be worse off than bumming couches from friends to sleep on.

I like the idea of Congress balancing its budgets, but I dislike the language of any balanced budget amendment I have seen, because none of them I have seen would work and all would create more problems than they would solve.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 31, 2011, 01:58:45 pm
Come on, Jes.  The Patriot Act did not come out of the president's war powers.  In fact, it was passed before we had the resolution to use force against Afghanistan.  So any cost of that act, if any, would fall under the restrictions of the balance budget amendment.

The fact that there is a new congress every two years is a specious argument.  90 % of those incumbents that choose to run again get back in, even in a bad year.  And those that want to stay in, which is most of them, fight as hard as they can do do so.  They WILL be around the following congress, at which time their ability to spend is cut by the amount they overspend last year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2011, 04:33:10 pm
Dave, the justification for the Patriot Act, and the legal defense used by the White House in defending it in court has been that after 9/11 we were at war.

And the interpretation you have for the Balanced Budget Amendment you are explaining is based on what text of which specific proposal?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 31, 2011, 04:57:50 pm
That was what they told the public.  But it was not part of the war powers of the president.

I am not interpreting a text, any more than you are criticizing any text.  I am proposing a concept for an amendment.  The text can be worked out before it is sent to congress.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 31, 2011, 05:26:06 pm
I had to do budgets for years for the athletic dept or the whole school.  I don't like balanced budgets.  There are two ways to balance a budget, one is to cut costs and spending, the other is the way American politicians prefer...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2011, 05:47:06 pm
Dave, it is not just "what they told the public."  It is also what the Bush AND Obama administrations have both argued in court, and it is the rational which the courts have relied on in upholding the Patriot Act.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 31, 2011, 06:27:10 pm
Jes - I haven't heard what the administrations have argued in court.

Have the courts gone along with those arguments?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 31, 2011, 06:31:21 pm
Curt - there are indeed two ways to balance a budget.  Cut costs or increase revenues.

The Balanced Budget amendment that I advocated would set a firm ceiling on spending.  Total Federal Spending would be limited to a specific percentage of GDP.  If GDP was projected to be 10 trillion, they could only have a budget of 2 trillion (assuming 20% were the percentage in the amendment).  I imagine that they could pass tax increases if they wanted to, but they couldn't spend the money.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2011, 07:54:39 pm
In part.

Courts show extreme deference to the executive branch in time of war, and the courts have not really limited it to combat situations in an armed conflict where Congress has declared war.  Exceptions during "times of war" pretty would much assure that we would be "at war" a lot.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 31, 2011, 09:01:12 pm
Would you prefer war of armed conflict?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2011, 09:20:31 pm
I would prefer we not have constitutional amendments enacted which create an incentive for Congress to declare perpetual war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 01, 2011, 12:37:07 am
Great victory for the Republicans tonight.  They appear to be ready to agree to the latest compromise.

In a nutshell, the Republicans agree to raise the debt ceiling right now, in return for a non-binding promise to cut spending in 2013 and beyond.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on August 01, 2011, 06:07:51 am
Now this is funny.  http://www.foxnews.mobi/#r_http%3A//politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html%3Fpage%3D23888%26external%3D1039831.proteus.fma

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 02, 2011, 11:49:03 am
Wall Street not at all impressed with the debt deal so far.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: guest118 on August 04, 2011, 03:46:52 pm
The DOW dropped 500 points today.....500!!!! Wasn't this MFer Nobama supposed to fix this??? It's getting worse.

'Hope' and 'Change' is clearly a massive novelty by now. 17 months left of this worthless, unqualified idiot.



Wasn't this MFer Nobama supposed to fix this stuff.....it's getting worse....WAKE UP NOBAMA!!!!

Add to the mix a debt-addicted nation that is still outspending its income by 25%, the high probability of a credit rating cut in the next couple weeks, and the all-but-confirmed reality that the Fed is or will be embarking on a 3rd round of money printing (QE3), and you've made yourself a ski slope for the greenback.


However his domestic outlook remains bleak, particularly on the jobs front, with expectations that the unemployment rate will rise to 9.4% when the July payroll data is released on Friday morning. It's a trend that must be addressed, particularly this late into a flop of a recovery. And printing more money into the system isn't the solution.


Schoenberger points to the past "when FDR had people laid off and was giving out an unemployment check he said, look, for four hours here's a shovel, here's a hammer, go build parks and monuments... and then the next four hours he sent you to a factory to learn new skills."

Not surprising as Schoenberger believes we are now "on the brink of another recession that could be worse than the last one." In this environment he favors owning companies with "great balance sheets and strong international growth stories" while we weather the storm. "Philip Morris (PM) is a king, not in this country but in Saudi Arabia, China, Africa, Europe. They are #1 in market share for cigarettes."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 04, 2011, 05:26:48 pm
The DOW dropped 500 points today.....500!!!! Wasn't this MFer Nobama supposed to fix this??? It's getting worse.

500 points may be nothing.

The economy is about ready to fall off a cliff.  The stock market decline of 2007-2008 could easily be small taters compared to what is on the way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on August 04, 2011, 08:32:56 pm
D W-S:  "We own the economy"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 05, 2011, 12:04:27 pm
Once again, the Republicans hold firm to their principles.

Republicans had insisted on the subsidy cuts as their price for restoring the FAA to full operation. But bill also includes language that gives Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood the authority to continue subsidized service to the 13 communities if he decides it's necessary. Democrats said they expect the administration to effectively waive or negate the cuts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 12:26:47 pm
Once again, the Republicans hold firm to their principles.

What principles, Dave?

Scr*w the Republican Party.  Come all the way to the dark side and simply start voting Libertarian.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 05, 2011, 01:10:02 pm
That will help a lot.  At least republicans usually try to hold down taxation.  With nothing but democrats, there will be just as much spending, but more taxes.

Voting for a libertarian in a national election is kind of like praying for divine healing.  I would hate to rely on that as my only possible solution.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 01:24:32 pm
Voting for a libertarian in a national election is kind of like praying for divine healing.

Not at all.  It is casting a vote for a clearly defined and easily understood set of principles... which politicians of both parties know they need to observe in order to add those votes to their own vote total the next election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 05, 2011, 01:33:51 pm
Not likely.  A vote for a guy that can not win is as bad as not voting at all just to register a protest.  You may hurt the republicans, but you certainly help the democrats.

I am not talking about a vote in the primary, where a vote for a libertarian running as a republican CAN make a difference.  But a vote for a third party in a national election is worse than useless.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 01:39:34 pm
Dave, when was the last time you believe your vote turned a national election.

I would bet it is never.  And for most of us our vote never comes close to turning a national election.

Our votes get lumped with the other votes for the winners or losers and it becomes rather difficult even for the winning candidate trying to faithfully carry out the will of the electorate which voted him to know exactly what most of them wanted.  Look at Obama.  Even if he WANTED to do as those who elected him wanted, what would that be, other than not be George Bush?

Not at all the case with Libertarian votes.  The position of those who vote Libertarian is very clearly understood (by anyone who makes have an effort), meaning politicians interested in attracting the support of those voters in future elections needs to reflect those positions.

I have never once regretted voting Libertarian.  Few folks can say that about their votes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 05, 2011, 01:49:01 pm
Jes - as far as I know, my vote alone has never affected any election, including the one for president of the Dee Fondy fan club.  And we only had 5 members.

That is hardly a reason to waste my vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 02:12:02 pm
No, but that is a good indication that every vote you have cast has likely been wasted.

It has not decided an election, and is very unlikely to have served to indicate what future candidates would likely need to do or support in order to win it.

I agree that voting for a 3rd party candidate such as Perot, who has no real clearly understood position for which he stands, is a wasted vote.  Or for 3rd party candidates who will not continue to have others on the ballot in the future with the same positions.  Or for 3rd party candidates where the party itself does not really have anything resembling coherent positions.

But that is not the case when you vote Libertarian.

Come on over to the dark side.....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 05, 2011, 02:16:56 pm
I would agree with every libertarian candidate if they weren't such lunatics on foreign relations and trade issues. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 05, 2011, 02:18:15 pm
All libertarians should feel free to waste their vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 05, 2011, 02:19:49 pm
True.  Voting foolishly should not be restricted to liberals.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 02:29:48 pm
I can understand considering them lunatics on foreign relations (I disagree, but can understand), but why would you take that position on trade?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 05, 2011, 02:35:53 pm
I have heard a great many claim that free trade is a terrible thing.  Many libertarians have come out in favor of tarriffs and protectionist policies.  I consider both stands to be dangerous.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 04:33:28 pm
I think you are mistaken on that, Dave, or you have been listening to folks who only pretend to be libertarians on weekends.

The Libertarian Party, and every libertarian thinker or supporter I have ever heard or read or spoken to (and that covers a 30 year period, and even a couple of years when I regularly attended meetings of the local Libertarian Party), supports free trade, opposes protectionism and opposes tariffs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 05, 2011, 07:38:21 pm
An article that Jes should love (if he didn't write it):

http://mises.org/daily/2070

I have no idea what it means.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 08:32:09 pm
It means free trade is good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 05, 2011, 08:33:14 pm
Well why didn't he just say that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 08:59:52 pm
He tried.

CONCLUSION

As with the hysteria over global warming, nuclear power, and every other innovation that changes our culture, the trends in globalization have led to fearful predictions. Upon closer scrutiny, most of these warnings fall apart. Yet even if the situation were dire, it still would not follow that placing tariffs or restrictions on capital mobility would make Americans richer. Until the critics can come up with at least one actual recommendation that is (a) a deviation from laissez-faire and (b) will make Americans richer, I see no reason to reject the presumption of liberty. As is so often the case, not only is freedom just, it is also pragmatic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 05, 2011, 09:01:00 pm
Play, I am not criticizing you.  The guy does a very poor job of making his point.  VERY POOR.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 05, 2011, 10:29:29 pm
Not a problem.  I really didn't make the effort to read the article carefully.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 06, 2011, 12:01:49 am
As I said, Jes, I don't follow libertarians very closely.  There views on foreign policies are enough to turn me away from most of them.

Regardless of their views, I would not vote for ANY third party candidate unless I felt that they had a reasonable chance to win the presidency.  And that isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 06, 2011, 12:42:17 am
Jes - most of my thoughts on libertarian ideas come from the little I follow Ron Paul.  he has consistantly voted against agreements such as NAFTA and other free trade agreements in congress.  Although he professes to be in favor of free trade, he has not done a very good job of explaining his opposition to such treaties.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 10:56:52 am
Not a problem.  I really didn't make the effort to read the article carefully.

Play, the way it was written almost discouraged reading, and made comprehension needlessly difficult for those who did.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 11:00:14 am
Jes - most of my thoughts on libertarian ideas come from the little I follow Ron Paul.  he has consistantly voted against agreements such as NAFTA and other free trade agreements in congress.  Although he professes to be in favor of free trade, he has not done a very good job of explaining his opposition to such treaties.

Actually he has, though you have suggested you might not have listened to the explanations (views on foreign policies are enough to turn me away from most of them).

He opposed NAFTA because it did not go far enough, not because it reduced many of the trade restrictions which existed before it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on August 06, 2011, 11:03:11 am
Now that S&P has downgraded the US credit rating and Moody's is not far behind,  I can't believe anyone would actually vote for another four years of this.  Obama's actions as president have been close to treasonous.  He has done what no foreign army could do.  Put the US on the brink of destruction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 11:12:40 am
Obama will still have the support of more than 90% of black voters, though their turnout may not be high in 2012, and the 15% of the population which makes of the **** left (including considerable overlap with blacks) will vote for him without fail, and most government employees/unionists and all dyed in the wool Democrats will vote for him, so he has a base support of at least 30% and probably 40% of the electorate which he could not lose no matter what.

He should be easily beaten for re-election, but he will still pull at least 40% of the vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 06, 2011, 12:14:55 pm
Jes - being against a good bill because it is not a perfect bill doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 12:57:47 pm
Dave, Paul supports free trade.  A free trade bill could be written in a single page.  NAFTA is a good deal longer than that, because it is NOT free trade.  It is managed trade.  Perhaps better than what existed before, but it is a long way from free trade.

I would agree that being DEFEATING a good bill because it is not a perfect bill may not be a good idea (though even that depends on the circumstances), but that that assumes you have a good bill.  And defeating a good bill is not the same as opposing a good bill in order to make it better.

Paul opposed NAFTA for a variety of reasons, including the following:
1) Instead of creating free trade, the 1,000 plus page bill created managed trade, favoring special interests.
2) The "management" of the trade was pretty much going to be completely in the hands of the White House will little chance for Congress to have much of a role, seriously increasing the power of the executive branch.
3) It would help lead to a North American Union, similar to the European Union (I am not saying that it would, but that Paul believes it will, and he opposes that).
4) While it did create free trade in some area (such as some agriculture exports), it actually created new protectionism for select special interests, such as pharmaceuticals and financial service industries.
5) He strongly opposed the super highway NAFTA was to produce from Mexico thru Canada, particularly because of the taking of private property thru use of eminent domain.

Now, it is easy to understand how a person could disagree with Paul on those issues, or even agree with the concerns while still supporting NAFTA, but it is not easy to understand how someone could contend that opposing NAFTA because of those concerns "doesn't make sense."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 06, 2011, 01:29:20 pm
You will have to explain a little more, Jes.  What does managed trade mean, and how is it managed?  I know that many of the things that I was able to purchase after NAFTA was passed, I was not able to purchase previous to that.

I can't talk to the expansion to Mexico, because nothing I bought came from Mexico.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 01:44:00 pm
Managed trade refers to giving the White House control over what will or not cross the borders, and even more it refers to the protectionism which NAFTA brought in some areas while reducing trade barriers in others.

Paul opposes tariffs, and believes they harm the economy and the consumer.  But tariffs are at least enacted by Congress, more or less in the open, and generally without particular companies picked as winners or losers.  Industries perhaps, but not so much particular companies.  NAFTA eliminated some trade barriers, but created others, not so much creating FREE trade as managed trade.

But, if you think government does a good job of making economic decisions, including those related to prices and production, then concerns about managed trade really don't matter much.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 01:46:08 pm
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-managed-trade-is-not-free-trade/

NAFTA
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the quintessential managed-trade vehicle sold under the rubric of free trade. The first tip-off should be its size. While we earlier saw how 54 words in the U.S. Constitution established free trade among the states of the Union, NAFTA weighs in at over 2,000 pages, 900 of which are tariff rates. (Under true free trade, there is one tariff rate—0 percent.) The agreement does have trade-liberalizing features, to be sure. Consisting of a 10 percent reduction in tariffs to be phased in over 15 years, however, they are all but buried under the profusion of controls NAFTA also establishes.

In the first place, the benefit from those tariff reductions are jeopardized by the agreement’s snap-back provisions. Those permit pre-NAFTA tariff levels to be restored against imported items which cause or threaten serious injury to domestic industry.[5] In other words, NAFTA supports free trade as long as it does not promote international competition which is too hot for favored domestic firms to handle. In addition, NAFTA’s rules of origin are designed to divert trade from the world’s most efficient suppliers to North America’s most efficient suppliers. This hobbles the international division of labor instead of expanding it, as true free trade does.

The importance of NAFTA clauses that keep out foreign goods came to light as U.S. clothing manufacturers railed against the import of wool suits from our NAFTA partner Canada. The suits in question were made from third-country wool not covered by NAFTA rules of origin. Since Canadian tariffs on foreign wool were lower than U.S. tariffs (10 percent vs. 34 percent),[6] Canadian suits sold for less and soon claimed a large share of the U.S. market. The fact that the entire discussion of this issue centered on closing this loophole in NAFTA rather than on lowering the injurious U.S. tariff on wool should prove how devoted NAFTA’s supporters are to free trade.

Free trade does not depend on international bureaucracies, yet NAFTA creates several of them. Its Commission for Environmental Cooperation was set up to enforce the environmental aim of sustainable growth. One tactic it uses is to prevent countries from trying to create a friendlier environment for investors by relaxing any extant environmental regulations.[7] Such rules are to be enforced by trade sanctions and fines, with the latter to go into a slush fund for environmental law enforcement.[8] NAFTA also created a Labor Commission, whose purpose is to level the playing field between trading partners with regard to labor costs. To repeat, free trade this is not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 06, 2011, 02:18:21 pm
I wasn't aware that the White House had control over what did or did not cross our borders.

It was my understanding that NAFTA eliminated all tariffs and restriction on all Canadian/US imports other than those on petroleum and agriculture.  Even most agriculture products were covered in the agreement, other than those grains that were grown in Canada, such as wheat, corn, rapeseed and the like.  It even eliminated those on mustard seed and soybeans that were big sticking points during the negotiation.

Do you know what controls the White House has over imports and exports?  I am not familiar with them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 02:41:17 pm
Don't know.  I do know that the superhighway was a major part of Paul's objection.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution — which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union — complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight — and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: VJ on August 06, 2011, 04:17:36 pm
3) It would help lead to a North American Union, similar to the European Union (I am not saying that it would, but that Paul believes it will, and he opposes that).

I've done some light reading on the possible existence of a "North American Union."  The best starting point is through Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/SPP) which obtained through FOIA hundreds of pages of documents regarding the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.  These documents cover everything from North American passcards, implementation of carbon taxes within the region, the infamous NAFTA superhighway, and even how "bring more people on board ('evolution by stealth')" to this partnership according to meeting documents released by NORTHCOM (http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-pentagon-records-north-american-forum-meetings).

Free trade is one of those issues I disagree with Dr. Paul on.  Free trade is a utopia which sounds great in theory.  It's somewhat like this unfounded notion that Paul thinks we can create a utopia by singing kumbaya with terrorists and that cutting back on military bases we can no longer afford, stopping random drone attacks on civilians which incite blowback, and in general relinquishing our self imposed and profitable militaristic role in policing the world is equal to "isolationism."  But I digress.

How can you conduct free trade that benefit the U.S. when...
1)  the Federal Reserve has a flawed fiat monetary policy that constantly lowers our buying power compared to other countries and makes investing into the U.S. less desirable
2)  1st world countries like Germany and 3rd world countries implement protectionist policies for their benefit
3)  The U.S. government does provide incentives or in some cases literally pays companies to invest and move jobs overseas (http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=320909&CategoryId=12396).
4)  NATFA, WTO, and GATT does benefit special interests and corporations and is not truly free market.

That's why I am for ripping up these trade agreements, ditching the WTO, and through Congress implement some concepts of "fair trade" which support our economic sovereignty more so than "free trade" in which its theoretical benefits in todays business climate is nearly impossible.  Obviously easier said than done.  Putting back some Hamiltonian principles back on our side which you may be perceive as debilitating protectionism may be to our best interest in leveling the playing field and easing the insane trade deficits we currently have.  Leave out the government subsidies to private industry of course.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 04:45:43 pm
VJ, read Adam Smith.

Free trade helps all people and all nations involved.

Jigger it up with some notion of what is "fair" and it will not.  It will pick winners and losers, and both nations will lose, though particular interest groups in them may benefit.  "Fair trade" is going to be little different from a modernized version of the mercantile system, which did not help either England or the Colonies as much as true free trade would have.

25 years ago I was working as a reporter in Springfield, MO, where Zenith had one of its last plants producing TV sets.  And a major ongoing story was the "dumping" of "cheap" TV sets produced in Korea, and to a lesser extent a few other Asian nations, but largely Korea.

The argument went that the South Korean government was subsidizing the production and sale of TVs in the US, so that a TV which would have cost $300 to make either in the US or in Korea could be sold in the US for $200, driving poor Zenith out of business because the Korean government was essentially giving TV sets away.

This was supposed to have been terrible.  I suppose it would have been worse still if Korea had sold the sets not for $200, but for $5.  Sh*t, then could have been really cut-throat about it and paid everyone in the US $20 to TAKE one of the Korean TVs.

I never quite grasped how the US as a nation was being harmed.  Zenith, and the workers it employed, could do something else of value to the nation, to the economy, to their neighbors, and even if it was worth relatively little, we as a nation would have come out far the better for it.  We would have gotten the TVs for LESS than we had been paying, and we also would have gotten the new goods or services Zenith and its former workers had been producing.

If some other nation, or company, is so foolish as to subsidize its manufacturing, or agriculture, or banking, or pharmeceuticals or computer software to such a degree that those in this country providing those goods or services can not compete.... they can do something else.

This nation, and this economy, as a whole will still benefit in the process.  (Though I believe claims of such subsidies and dumping by various nations are grossly overblown, my point is that even if they are entirely true, we will STILL benefit from allowing it.)

As to your reference to "Hamilton principles".... great guy, but he was no more right on protectionism than he was in thinking a duel is the way to settle a political argument, or to think that screwing around on his wife was acceptable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 06, 2011, 05:00:49 pm
Jes - I was with you right up to the "screwing around on the wife" part.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: VJ on August 06, 2011, 05:02:57 pm
Well Burr did agree to it.  It does take two to duel.  Screwing around on the wife is SOP in politics.

I don't have the answers as to how Zenith or any other company can compete or what kind of new products they can produce that can take advantage of American workers.  Does the worker just eventually have to accept a lower standard of living and a major cut in wages while experiencing even more inflation of a currency about to lose its reserve status?  The U.S. just can't go on as a service economy or as a subsidized Wall Street c asino economy without building something that is tradeable in a "free trade" environment.  And "free trade" or not, as far as the global economy is concerned, I just don't see anything positive in the near future.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 06, 2011, 05:46:17 pm
The primary difference between Burr and Hamilton these days is that few cite Burr these days as some magical font of wisdom... but you are failing to grasp the point with the example of Zenith.

I again urge you to read Adam Smith.  Or try Milton Friedman's Free to Chose.

You need some enlightenment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 06, 2011, 06:06:18 pm
Differences between the wage rates of America and the rest of the world (or at least China and India) is going to disappear in the next 50 years or so.  It can happen by increasing the wage rates of the rest of the world, or decreasing those of America, or a combination of the two.

Productivity increases in America can slow things down, but there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

I am rooting for the rest of the world to go up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2011, 12:02:50 pm
The dropping out of Pawlenty comes at a very convenient time for Perry.  A lot of experienced campaign staffers are now looking for work.  And since Pawlenty was the first to gather his staff, there are a lot of good ones to be had.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2011, 12:36:47 pm
Yea, those experienced campaign staffers did wonders for Pawlenty.

Perry might be well advised to pass on them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2011, 01:38:47 pm
Every compaign staffer that has been around a while has had winners and losers.  A good campaign staff can not totally overcome a bad candidate.

I doubt that any candidate from either party has not had staffers that had worked for losers in the past.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2011, 02:05:24 pm
Dave, I am not arguing your last point, but if Pawlenty was a good candidate with bad staff which hurt him, Perry would be well advised to look elsewhere.  If Pawlenty was a bad candidate, but his staff were either such mercenaries they did not care or such poor judges of what could or could not be sold to the voters, Perry would STILL be well advised to look elsewhere.

Yes, I have heard the same sort of conventional wisdom you have from the network talking heads about Pawlenty having had a lot of supposed great staffers (though what I had heard was that they were great Iowa staffers, not necessarily folks to had much experience or expertise outside of Iowa), but the fact that the conventional wisdom thinks highly of them is not very persuasive.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2011, 02:14:44 pm
All campaign staffers are mercenaries.  They go with the guy that offers them the most money for the longest period of time, as long as they believe that working for him will not hurt their career long term.  And almost no one is so bad that working for him will hurt their career long term.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2011, 02:17:05 pm
All campaign staffers are mercenaries.  They go with the guy that offers them the most money for the longest period of time, as long as they believe that working for him will not hurt their career long term.  And almost no one is so bad that working for him will hurt their career long term.

Having worked as staff on a Congressional campaign, I can say with great certainty that you are wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2011, 03:01:36 pm
Are you talking about the low level workers and volunteers, or the staff management?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2011, 03:28:51 pm
Staff management.  The idea that they go whereever they are paid best, without any concern for the candidate personally or positions, is true only for a small number of those folks.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2011, 05:19:03 pm
I haven't noticed ISF on the board lately.  Did he make the change over when the old board tanked?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 14, 2011, 05:46:58 pm
I haven't noticed ISF on the board lately.  Did he make the change over when the old board tanked?

I don't know if it is the same one, but an ISF on this board posted just three days ago.  http://bbf.createaforum.com/index.php?action=profile;u=67
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 14, 2011, 08:39:08 pm
Iowa is usually in the fantasy topic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2011, 09:59:37 pm
I expected to hear all about the Iowa politics from him this year, like we did in 08.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 14, 2011, 10:05:56 pm
I think ISF is big time on the Santorum bandwagon isn't he?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2011, 10:09:27 pm
I don't know.  Wasn't he a Huckelby man last time?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 15, 2011, 07:41:52 am
I think ISF is big time on the Santorum bandwagon isn't he?

Bandwagon and Santorum only belong in the same sentence if you are pointing out that Santorum does not have one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 15, 2011, 11:33:43 am
Santorum will win the nomination easily if he gets enough votes.

But he won't beat Obama unless he gets enough votes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 16, 2011, 02:56:09 pm
Hilarious

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 17, 2011, 08:10:56 am
Has anyone seen Penn Jillette and Jes in the same room?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jillette.atheist.libertarian/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 17, 2011, 08:34:55 am
I rather naturally agree with Jillette on most political issues.... but Penn has WAY more hair than I do.... and money.

But in reading the link it appears my libertarian ideals are framed at least in part by a much stronger belief in the value and effect of free markets and free market capitalism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 18, 2011, 11:11:46 am
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/18/how-washington-is-destroying-the-economy/?hpt=hp_t1
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 18, 2011, 06:18:13 pm
Interesting that the only guys that are actaully trying to solve the problem are the major ones that get the blame for the problem.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 20, 2011, 11:55:43 am
Any better example of the difference in countries?  Iran will incarcerate the two Americans for 8 more years on virtually no evidence while in Arkansas we release 3 because the evidence is and always was, suspect. 

On one hand, I find it hard to feel sorry for people who taunt the tiger and get bitten, as in Iran, and I feel sorry for the parents of the three little boys who were killed who need closure, but there are lessons to be learned.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on August 20, 2011, 01:11:36 pm
Any better example of the difference in countries?  Iran will incarcerate the two Americans for 8 more years on virtually no evidence while in Arkansas we release 3 because the evidence is and always was, suspect. 

On one hand, I find it hard to feel sorry for people who taunt the tiger and get bitten, as in Iran, and I feel sorry for the parents of the three little boys who were killed who need closure, but there are lessons to be learned.

The West Memphis Three were held for 18 years on scant evidence so I'm not really sure which side is better in this case.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2011, 02:46:22 pm
Any better example of the difference in countries?  Iran will incarcerate the two Americans for 8 more years on virtually no evidence while in Arkansas we release 3 because the evidence is and always was, suspect. 

On one hand, I find it hard to feel sorry for people who taunt the tiger and get bitten, as in Iran, and I feel sorry for the parents of the three little boys who were killed who need closure, but there are lessons to be learned.

Yea, this country is always careful to dot all of the I's and cross all of the T's, and makes sure that everyone is afforded a full course of due process no matter what.

I mean, the Bin Laden case illustrates how we.... oh, never mind.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 20, 2011, 03:11:40 pm
The West Memphis Three were held for 18 years on scant evidence so I'm not really sure which side is better in this case.

Good point, Cletus.  At least the right thing was FINALLY done.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 20, 2011, 03:28:27 pm
Good point, Cletus.  At least the right thing was FINALLY done.

Only after forcing them to plead guilty to lesser offenses which the evidence did not support.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/aug/19/west-memphis-three-free/?partner=popular  John Mark Byers, whose son Christopher was one of the victims of the 1993 murders, spoke Friday in Jonesboro. "It's a total injustice,'' he said. "These three men are being made to plead guilty to something they didn't do.''
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on August 29, 2011, 12:26:57 pm
Sorry, I'm immersed in politics already. I hadn't been posting on the Bears forum either.

I am on Santorum's IA Steering Committee, I am chair for the county GOP and I am an elected official myself, so time is at a premium right now.

davep mentioned on the other board that he was surpised I was backing Santorum. The long and the short of it is, if you think foreign policy will be an important part of the discussion next year, then Santorum and Gingrich are the two choices you have, and Gingrich is on Hawaiian vacation.

Santorum spent 8 years on Senate Armed Services committee, passed entitlement reform (along with Gingrich), passed pro-life legislation and spent 14 years representing blue districts in a blue state (PA).

Once you get past the Rock Star treatment some of the others are getting and look at the resumes, one has to wonder why Bachmann and Perry are anywhere near the top. You can at least make a case that few Republicans can look at Paul's FP platform and even consider him, despite his length of service in the House.

Perry was Gore's Texas campaign Chair in '88, supported governement-mandated healthcare (HPV vaccines) and using tax dollars for scholarships for illegal immigrants. Outside of Huntsman, I don't see a more liberal candidate on the GOP side.

Bachmann is an inexperienced diva who can raise money. Sound like anyone we know?

Romney is likely my fallback choice. Only because he probably has the most solid business/economics credentials after Paul, without all the isolationist "let Iran have all the nuclear toys they want" nonsense.

Pawlenty is gone because he spent too much money trying to win one event. Too much paid staff, too many ineffective ads. Santorum ran 0 ads and still finished 4th, just 600 votes behind him.

There are 5 months to caucus. Every time someone new has jumped in, their poll numbers have spiked as people whistle at the shiny new car in the race.
That luster dims as people here kick the tires. The bottom line is that you need solid supporters who will go into their precinct caucus and stump for you passionately and credibly. If you don't have that...it's going to be a long evening for you on Feb. 6.

Oh, and I was a Romney supporter in 2008. I didn't like the Huckabee campaign's subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on Romney's faith. This country is founded on freedom of religion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2011, 01:03:34 pm
I am on Santorum's IA Steering Committee...

Sorry to hear that.  It's about like learning you have a close family member on life support.

The long and the short of it is, if you think foreign policy will be an important part of the discussion next year, then Santorum and Gingrich are the two choices you have, and Gingrich is on Hawaiian vacation.

Only if you agree with them on foreign policy, which is a very aggressive, interventionist policy... which the nation simply can not afford.  Trying to maintain military presence over a very large part of the world helped to bring down the Roman Empire more than 1500 years ago, the Spanish empire about 400 years ago, the British empire last century, and the Soviet empire about 20 years ago.

There is no reason at all to believe the US can bear the financial burdens which collapsed each of those.  And yet Gingrich and Santorum would both have us expand our international military role.  You are right that if THAT is the foreign policy you want, those two are the only way to go.

Some of us do not want to see the US continue down the international/military road which is bankrupting us.



You can at least make a case that few Republicans can look at Paul's FP platform and even consider him, despite his length of service in the House.

I'm sure you can make that case for yourself and persuade yourself of it... thought Paul regularly polls among the leaders and if he gets the nomination, he will win the election (as would any of the other current Republican candidates).


Perry was Gore's Texas campaign Chair in '88, supported governement-mandated healthcare (HPV vaccines) and using tax dollars for scholarships for illegal immigrants. Outside of Huntsman, I don't see a more liberal candidate on the GOP side.

You really need to distinguish "libertarian" from "liberal."  I know the spelling could fool you, but there is a lot more involved than that.  Now, since I already know you are going to claim you know the difference and that Huntsman really is liberal, could you explain just what his liberal positions are?

As to Perry supporting Gore in 1988, Reagan had supported FDR and Truman.  Big deal.  And while the HPV vaccine issue has some extra traction because it is relatively new and has a sexual component to it, the reality is that mandates HPV vaccines are little different from the government mandating that water supplies be flouridated or that kids get vaccines for mumps, measles, whooping cough or smallpox.  If you accept those, and get bent out of shape about the HPV vaccine, you are not seriously looking at the issue.  And if you also challenge those, most other folks are not going to take you serious, despite how seriously you are looking at the issue of government intervention in private decisions.


Romney is likely my fallback choice. Only because he probably has the most solid business/economics credentials after Paul, without all the isolationist "let Iran have all the nuclear toys they want" nonsense.

Paul has not said "let Iran have all the nuclear toys they want," and he certainly has not said he thinks it would be a good idea for them to get nukes.  He HAS said that we have no moral authority to allow us to decide who does or does not have such weapons, and that efforts to prevent Iran from getting them are harmful to our national interests on the international arena, and that embargoes and trade restrictions increase international tension and instability and the likelihood of war, while considerable trade with another nation reduces the chance of war with that nation.

As you might have guessed, Paul is the candidate I hope gets the Republican nomination.  Certainly Romney would be preferable to what we now have, but Romney supported in Massachusetts a plan not greatly different from ObamaCare, and at that time Romney thought that approach was just fine.  Romney also has been rather limp-wristed on the issue of climate change.  On of the things I like about Perry is that he does not hesitate to take clear-cut positions of issues such as "Global Warming" (he says it is a crock) and Social Security (he openly calls it a Ponzi scheme).  At the same time I am seriously concerned by the though the HPV vaccines issue and the 2008 embarrassment in which the State of Texas removed more than 400 Mormon children from their families without anything resembling a proper basis to do so (as the courts rather quickly found) and with Perry not removing or reprimanding a single individual with the state agency responsible and doing not one thing to prevent a repeat performance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on August 29, 2011, 01:43:58 pm
Sorry to hear that.  It's about like learning you have a close family member on life support.

Serving as a campaign advisor for a Presidential candidate is an honor any politico worth their salt would respect.

Only if you agree with them on foreign policy, which is a very aggressive, interventionist policy... which the nation simply can not afford.  Trying to maintain military presence over a very large part of the world helped to bring down the Roman Empire more than 1500 years ago, the Spanish empire about 400 years ago, the British empire last century, and the Soviet empire about 20 years ago.

There is no reason at all to believe the US can bear the financial burdens which collapsed each of those.  And yet Gingrich and Santorum would both have us expand our international military role.  You are right that if THAT is the foreign policy you want, those two are the only way to go.

Except that neither Santorum nor Gingrich has said we need to expand our military role. He has stated that the entire process of how we became engaged in Libya is a joke, and that we don't need cold war bases anymore. Our military has transformed into a highly technological force with many specialized units that can quickly and effectively carry out missions. Today's threats demand a different approach.


Paul regularly polls among the leaders

Where? He does well in straw polls because he has a cultish base that will attend and vote for him.
He is currently polling around 4% in South Carolina. His poll numbers are little better than Santorum's.
The difference is that Paul has a basement and a ceiling. He has a base that will vote for him no matter what he says.
Most in the GOP, however, cannot even think about supporting his isolationist policies. They are too libertarian.
Somebody I know said it best: "80% of what Ron Paul says is genius. It's the other 20% that make him unelectable."

You really need to distinguish "libertarian" from "liberal."  I know the spelling could fool you, but there is a lot more involved than that.  Now, since I already know you are going to claim you know the difference and that Huntsman really is liberal, could you explain just what his liberal positions are?

Huntsman promoted cap-and-trade as governor and continues to promote the human catastrophic global warming myth, for starters.
He has also promoted using tax dollars to fund tuition and aid to illegal immigrants.
His recent comments about "shared sacrifice" sound a whole lot like plans for wealth redistribution.

As to Perry supporting Gore in 1988, Reagan had supported FDR and Truman.  Big deal.

FDR was President in the 40's. Reagan didn't successfully run for office until 1980.
Gore was championing climate change legislation even in '88. It is a big deal.

And while the HPV vaccine issue has some extra traction because it is relatively new and has a sexual component to it, the reality is that mandates HPV vaccines are little different from the government mandating that water supplies be flouridated or that kids get vaccines for mumps, measles, whooping cough or smallpox.  If you accept those, and get bent out of shape about the HPV vaccine, you are not seriously looking at the issue.  And if you also challenge those, most other folks are not going to take you serious, despite how seriously you are looking at the issue of government intervention in private decisions.

Try telling that to the voting public when Axelrod trots out TV ad after TV ad mentioning that Rick Perry wanted to force all women to submit to a government-mandated health procedure. Like it or not, most people will see it as hypocritical when he's running on a platform of repealing ObamaCare, just as they'll see Romney as hypocritical if that is what he runs on.

Paul has not said "let Iran have all the nuclear toys they want," and he certainly has not said he thinks it would be a good idea for them to get nukes.

OK...

He HAS said that we have no moral authority to allow us to decide who does or does not have such weapons, and that efforts to prevent Iran from getting them are harmful to our national interests on the international arena,

Uh, wait a minute, this sounds a whole lot like "let them have as many nuclear toys as they want"...it's not within our moral authority...

As you might have guessed, Paul is the candidate I hope gets the Republican nomination. 

Of course he is. He is by far the most Libertarian candidate in the field. I would have been shocked had you supported anyone else.


Certainly Romney would be preferable to what we now have, but Romney supported in Massachusetts a plan not greatly different from ObamaCare, and at that time Romney thought that approach was just fine.  Romney also has been rather limp-wristed on the issue of climate change.  On of the things I like about Perry is that he does not hesitate to take clear-cut positions of issues such as "Global Warming" (he says it is a crock) and Social Security (he openly calls it a Ponzi scheme).  At the same time I am seriously concerned by the though the HPV vaccines issue and the 2008 embarrassment in which the State of Texas removed more than 400 Mormon children from their families without anything resembling a proper basis to do so (as the courts rather quickly found) and with Perry not removing or reprimanding a single individual with the state agency responsible and doing not one thing to prevent a repeat performance.

I agree with all of this.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2011, 03:03:51 pm
Serving as a campaign advisor for a Presidential candidate is an honor any politico worth their salt would respect.

Except that it's the Santorum campaign.

Except that neither Santorum nor Gingrich has said we need to expand our military role.

Perhaps not expressly, but neither of them has ever indicated that in their great concern for reducing spending that they would shutdown overseas bases, bring troops home, or accept the notion that we are not an imperial nation and should not be trying to intervene around the world as if we were.

If Gingrich said that, I might seriously consider the guy.  Santorum I think is too far gone for me to support him regardless.


Where (does Paul poll well)? He does well in straw polls because he has a cultish base that will attend and vote for him.

Where?  In public opinion polls.  It is surprising that you would either be unaware of it, or think that a Paul supporter would let you slide on it.  http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110721006488/en/Ron-Paul-Polls-Head-Head-Obama  http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/24/ron-paul-within-one-percent-of-obama-in-head-to-head-poll/  http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx 

The difference is that Paul has a basement and a ceiling. He has a base that will vote for him no matter what he says.
Most in the GOP, however, cannot even think about supporting his isolationist policies.

Paul's supporters will actually show up to vote.  That intensity is absent for most of the others.  The Republicans who "cannot even think about supporting (what you call) his isolationist policies will become increasingly realistic about military spending later this year as the budget deal from this summer forces a real examination of military spending.  Paul's voice on the issue will become increasingly attractive.


Huntsman promoted cap-and-trade as governor and continues to promote the human catastrophic global warming myth, for starters.

I believe Huntsman's support of cap and trade was not much different from support of an effluent discharge tax on pollution, and that is not a liberal idea.  And his support of global warming baloney is not at all an indication that he is liberal, though it is an indication that he is foolish, and somewhat politically naive.


He has also promoted using tax dollars to fund tuition and aid to illegal immigrants.
His recent comments about "shared sacrifice" sound a whole lot like plans for wealth redistribution.

Before I respond to positions or comments I am unfamiliar with, would you care to provide links?

FDR was President in the 40's. Reagan didn't successfully run for office until 1980.
Gore was championing climate change legislation even in '88. It is a big deal.

I was quite familiar with Gore in 1988, and while he has always been an environmental nut, he was not pushing climate change as a major issue (if at all) in 1988.  In 1988 Perry was a Democrat.  Of the Democrats running in 1988, Gore was the most moderate of the lot: Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon, Jesse Jackson, and Michael Dukakis.

Try telling that to the voting public when Axelrod trots out TV ad after TV ad mentioning that Rick Perry wanted to force all women to submit to a government-mandated health procedure. Like it or not, most people will see it as hypocritical when he's running on a platform of repealing ObamaCare, just as they'll see Romney as hypocritical if that is what he runs on.

I disagree.  Much of the public, and nearly all of those who would support Obama, likely think the HPV vaccines are a great idea.... just like they think mandatory measles, polio, etc vaccines are a great idea, and that it is wonderful for government to flouridate the water.  I am afraid the ship has sailed on those issues, and that the libertarian position has lost.  Those simply are not ads Axlerod would run.

Uh, wait a minute, this sounds a whole lot like "let them have as many nuclear toys as they want"...it's not within our moral authority...

If so, you need to read a bit more closely, and think a bit more clearly.


Of course he is. He is by far the most Libertarian candidate in the field. I would have been shocked had you supported anyone else.

I actually liked Gary Johnson more initially... until he appears to have decided to take his 2% name recognition and rest on his laurels.  That guy's campaign approach makes it impossible to support him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on August 29, 2011, 03:49:56 pm
You lost all credibility with me in your first comment. I may not be voting for Paul, and I may think his foreign policy views misguided,  but I would never say that it would not be an honor to serve as one of his advisors. That is simply foolish rhetoric.

You would have to explain how Santorum is "too far gone". That statement also makes no sense. I at least have provided examples for why Paul is unelectable in a GOP caucus/primary. Note I did not say Libertarian.

As for links to polls, scroll down to page 4:

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Magellan-South-Carolina-2012-Republican-Presidential-Primary-Survey-Topline-Results-0826111.pdf

And then note that Santorum polls in a statistical heat with Obama here:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/02/santorum-spreading-former-senator-ties-obama-in-pennsylvania-poll-finds/

Polls don't mean much in August. It's name recognition, not much more.

What the Ames Straw Poll does is identify who has grass roots organization, who is building momentum and can turn out vote.
The objective is not necessarily to win. It is to meet/exceed expectations.

Pawlenty finished in 3rd, ahead of Santorum, and is out. He is out because he failed to meet expectations. You can't fundraise when you've spent over a million dollars on winning an event and you finish a distant 3rd. How would you sell that to possible donors?

On the other hand, Santorum spent $0 on ads in Iowa. He has perhaps the least amount of paid staff. He relied solely on retail politics and a strong grass roots team to get out vote. He finished 4th, ahead of Cain, Gingrich and a host of others who are polling ahead of him. He exceeded expectations, and his fundraising has seen a significant boost because of it. He can now tell donors "imagine what I can do if I can run ads".

Bachmann and Paul met expectations. Both were considered the favorites to win and it was close enough that while Bachmann finished ahead, Paul can say that the goal was achieved.

The difference between the two is that Bachmann's star is fading in Iowa. Perry's entry has hurt her, as has her own inability to grasp retail politics.
Paul will see no ill effects to his numbers, no matter what he does, and he's done little in Iowa. His supporters are limited but passionate. Paul will pull 10-12% in the caucus. Period.

Personally, I would not be surprised to see Bachmann fall behind Paul when it is said and done. The Tea Party folks seem to be gravitating to Perry and the Social Conservatives natural home is Santorum. Moderates are going to Romney and Libertarians are going to Paul. I fail to see a niche Bachmann can hold onto for another 5 months.




Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2011, 05:27:03 pm
Reagan supported Truman when he ran for president in 1952.  And then ran in the republican primary in 1976, 24 years later.

Perry supported Gore in 1988, and is running for the republican primary in 2012, 24 years later.

Even Jesmath can't make much of a difference in that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2011, 05:55:13 pm
ISF, my comment about Santorum was not foolish rhetoric.  It was sincere sentiment.  I find the guy's holier-than-thou, santcimonius attitude personally disgusting.  And while you might have tried to show why you feel Paul is unelectable, I did not say that Santorum had gone "too far" for the electorate, but that he had gone "too far" for ME.  That is an entirely personal and subjective standard.

I don't like the guy.  I don't like much of anything about him.  While I think I would enjoy having a beer with either Bill Clinton or Obama, both of whom I detest politically, I don't think I would accept tickets to a Cubs game if it meant sitting next to Santorum.

Now, to save time, some of the things on which I believe he has gone "too far" are the following:

1) His strong support for laws which criminalize private consensual conduct between adults when that conduct is what he considers "deviant," specifically anything outside what he considers to be "traditional heterosexual relationships."  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84862,00.html   This was specifically related to his being personally offended and uncomfortable with homosexuality, but could equally be applied to any sexual act, whether oral sex between a husband and wife or mastrubation.  Sorry.  But for me that is "too far."

2) As a result of that position which is "too far" he has also taken positions consistent with his moral views but not much else regarding gays in the military.  Sorry.  But for me that is "too far."  (Not so much the opposition to ending the "Don't ask don't tell" policy, but his comments about that issue which have made clear that he didn't really care about the facts or the effect of the policy, he simply cared about having it conform with his personal morality.)

3) His reaction to gay critics, saying, "There are foul people out there who do horrible things."

4) His call for English as the official language.

5) His call for having the federal government require local school districts to teach "intelligent  design" nonsense.

6) His downright anti-immigrant xenophobia.

7) His abandonment, any time the mood strikes, of the federalism, and reduced federal regulations, he claims to champion, one example being the Workplace Religious Freedom Act.

And if his positions were different, I still would not like him.  I don't like the way he looks, the way he talks, his continual half sneer, or his tone of voice.  And the weirdness of him and his wife taking home to "introduce to their children" the corpse of their infant child who died two hours after birth, then SLEEPING with the dead infant's body before returning it to the hospital for disposal....  that is just creepy.

Santorum makes Newt Gingrich seem warm and cuddly.  And he makes Pawlenty seem charismatic.  Between his positions on social issues, his frequent abandonment of his stated political views on small government and federalism and constitutional limitations, and his smarmy look, the guy simply reminds me of David Duke.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on August 29, 2011, 06:13:26 pm
A lot of discussion about two guys who have no chance to be elected President.

In fact, none of the GOP contenders have a chance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2011, 06:24:42 pm
I think that having english as the official language is a good idea.  All official documents should be in english only, and schools should be taught in english only.  Immigrants can learn the language, if they wish.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 29, 2011, 07:20:22 pm
A lot of discussion about two guys who have no chance to be elected President.

In fact, none of the GOP contenders have a chance.

Romney has a 50-50 chance or maybe slightly better if conditions next November are pretty much the same as now - Obama at 40% or below approval and the economy still going nowhere.  He's really the best candidate the Republicans have for the current climate.  He has credibility on the economy, and he's someone the country would trust handing the reins to if they want to get rid of a weak incumbent badly enough.  If it was Romney vs. Obama right now, I'd be willing to bet Romney would win a close election. 

Obama may still be at 40% approval next November, but the country may not feel much better turning the country over to a guy talking about secession or a controversial congresswoman who's thin on accomplishment and for every bright thing she says turns around and says something silly like promising gasoline under $2 if she's elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2011, 07:22:07 pm
I think that having english as the official language is a good idea.  All official documents should be in english only, and schools should be taught in english only.  Immigrants can learn the language, if they wish.

Dave naming English "the official language" is simply a move to wave the flag and slam immigrants.  It would in many respect either do nothing whatsoever, or be counter-productive.

As to requiring that schools only be taught in English, are you saying that if I want to home school my kids in my native Spanish or Korean or Polish, I should not be allowed to do so?  That if I chose to send my child to a school instead of home school that I should not be allowed to send to a school teaching in one of those languages?  That if I want to use my money to pay for a private school I should not have that choice?  That if a state allowed education vouchers they should not be allowed to use them for such a school?

Are you saying that the federal government should be making such determinations about the way schools teach their kids?  And if so, could you point me to the language in the Constitution giving the federal government such power?

For that matter, where in the Constitution would the federal government have the power to declare ANYTHING an "official"?

If those speaking Spanish, or Korean or Dutch became the majority in any state or municipality, and an overwhelmiong majority of the population spoke that other language, would they not be allowed to speak it or conduct business in it?

Just what would the legal consequence be of having something an "official language"?  Not the feel good consequence of English speakers being able to emotionally thump their chests at having the "official language," but what would it mean?

If you have a community where a majority speak a language other than English, do you really want to prohibit any government business from being conducted in that language or documents translated into that language?  If you have a ballot initiative do you really want to prohibit that initiative from appearing in a language which would allow a majority of voters voting on it to actually understand what they were voting on?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2011, 07:23:37 pm
JR, Obama right now is virtually unelectable, and the odds are that the economy will be worse next November than it is now, and that even if it has improved, the employment picture will not have.  He is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on August 29, 2011, 07:47:37 pm

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.


- Teddy Roosevelt
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2011, 09:54:45 pm
Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for a lot of bad law, bad politics and foolish thinking, but that was to be expected from one of the early progressives.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on August 29, 2011, 11:26:35 pm
ISF,  I was wondering where in Iowa you are from?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2011, 11:56:46 pm
As to requiring that schools only be taught in English, are you saying that if I want to home school my kids in my native Spanish or Korean or Polish, I should not be allowed to do so?  That if I chose to send my child to a school instead of home school that I should not be allowed to send to a school teaching in one of those languages?  That if I want to use my money to pay for a private school I should not have that choice?  That if a state allowed education vouchers they should not be allowed to use them for such a school?

You have a habit of going off on a tangent. 

If you want to home school your child, you can do it in pig latin if you wish.  If you want to send your kid to a private school, THEY can teach in pig latin if they wish.

And if a local community wants to teach in another language, they can do so, as long as they don't take any federal money for their schools.

And by "official language", I mean all federal and state official business be conducted in english, including public schooling, government licensing, etc.

Anyone would still be free to speak any language they wished in private.  And immigrants would be welcome, as long as they learned to speak english, or were able to function without learning it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2011, 04:50:08 pm
You have a habit of going off on a tangent. 

If you want to home school your child, you can do it in pig latin if you wish.  If you want to send your kid to a private school, THEY can teach in pig latin if they wish.

And if a local community wants to teach in another language, they can do so, as long as they don't take any federal money for their schools.

And by "official language", I mean all federal and state official business be conducted in english, including public schooling, government licensing, etc.

Anyone would still be free to speak any language they wished in private.  And immigrants would be welcome, as long as they learned to speak english, or were able to function without learning it.

The "going off on a tangent" which you appear to be referring to amounts to simply responding to a statement you made and asking questions about it, and getting answers which appear to be somewhat at odds with your unqualified absolute initial statement that "schools should be taught in english only."

As to wanting English as the "official language" for the purpose of "federal and state official business (and) government licensing," what would be the need for government telling government what language it will conduct business in?

That is a serious question, because call for "English as an official language" makes no sense to me... other than as an effort to poke a dirty finger in the eye of anyone who does not speak English, and who even in the absence of English being the "official language" has no power to force any business to be conducted in his language.

I can see some xenophobes wanting to stand in the public square and pound their chest about how THEY are the "real Americuns" (I am reminded of Jack the Butcher in the movie "Gangs of New York) and make themselves feel good by making English "the official language," but what real practical effect would this have?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 30, 2011, 08:14:06 pm
your unqualified absolute initial statement that "schools should be taught in english only."

As to wanting English as the "official language" for the purpose of "federal and state official business (and) government licensing," what would be the need for government telling government what language it will conduct business in?

That is a serious question, because call for "English as an official language" makes no sense to me... other than as an effort to poke a dirty finger in the eye of anyone who does not speak English, and who even in the absence of English being the "official language" has no power to force any business to be conducted in his language.

I can see some xenophobes wanting to stand in the public square and pound their chest about how THEY are the "real Americuns" (I am reminded of Jack the Butcher in the movie "Gangs of New York) and make themselves feel good by making English "the official language," but what real practical effect would this have?

One problem with ongoing posts on a board like this is that you have to assume that the reader, if he enters an ongoing conversation, is conversant with ALL the posts on the subject.  It is not reasonable to think that every new answer must contain within it a summary of all previous posts.  Since the conversation was concerning government action, a reasonable person should realize that private schools were not at issue.

As far as an "official language" is concerned, one major unifying action in this country is a common language.  It aides immeasurably in helping new immigrants, most of whom spoke languages other than english, to meld into the population.  My ancestors, speaking dutch, were among them.  It would be a terrible mistake to let the country to degenerate into little foreign ghettos.  I could care less WHO comes here.  As long as they come to "become american ", rather than to continue as a "little Netherlands" or other subculture.

That is not a xenophobic attitude.  Fear of foreigners has nothing to do with it.  And making accusations like that might be great rhetoric, but does little to advance the discussion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2011, 10:58:44 pm
One problem with ongoing posts on a board like this is that you have to assume that the reader, if he enters an ongoing conversation, is conversant with ALL the posts on the subject.  It is not reasonable to think that every new answer must contain within it a summary of all previous posts.  Since the conversation was concerning government action, a reasonable person should realize that private schools were not at issue.

And one benefit of ongoing posts like this is that you CAN go back to check someone's claim... like the claim that "the conversation was concerning government action."  It was not.  The first mention of "English as the official language" was by me, and other than any implication in the phrase itself, there was no suggestion that it concerned "government action."

All of my questions are all real issues which would have to be resolved in any designation of English as "the official language," and, considering your stated goal of essentially getting everyone to speak English to serve as a unifying force for the nation, allowing private schools to be taught in other than English could clearly frustrate that goal... in which case, what again would be the reason for the designation?

And what of my question about where the Constitution would grant the federal government the power to determine what language would be used ANYWHERE, other than in the publication of its own official documents... a power it already has without designating English as "the official language"?  (It would be an amusing legal debate of the concept of federalism to see the federal government try to prevent a state from printing their documents in multiple languages for the benefit of its citizens or allowing local school districts to determine the language to be used in their classrooms.  It would be amusing because it would align those who generally call for limited power of the federal government behind a grab of power not found in the Constitution and to then wield it against the states... while those who generally call for unlimited power for the federal government without any concern for finding a textual basis for the power would be arguing that in THIS case the federal government should not have such power... and I am pretty confident that the Supreme Court would strike down such a law for any purpose other than determining the language in which federal documents are published... and there has never really been any question about that anyway.)

As far as an "official language" is concerned, one major unifying action in this country is a common language.  It aides immeasurably in helping new immigrants, most of whom spoke languages other than english, to meld into the population.  My ancestors, speaking dutch, were among them.  It would be a terrible mistake to let the country to degenerate into little foreign ghettos.  I could care less WHO comes here.  As long as they come to "become american ", rather than to continue as a "little Netherlands" or other subculture.

And we have had that common language for more than 200 years without any need to have "an official language."  There is no need whatsoever to think we would not continue to have that unifying feature even in the absence of "an official language," and, so long as an "official language" would not require that it be spoken at all times in public there is also no reason to believe that designating English as the "official language" would do anything to increase the use of English or speed the time it takes immigrants to learn it.


That is not a xenophobic attitude.  Fear of foreigners has nothing to do with it.  And making accusations like that might be great rhetoric, but does little to advance the discussion.

Please look back at my prior posts.  Please tell me where I said you were a xenophobe, or even that the desire for English as an official language is xenophobic.  I wrote that I can understand xenophobes calling for it because it makes them feel good, and then asked OTHER than making xenophobes feel good, "what real practical effect would this have?"

I'm not saying you are xenophobic, but the reasons you do give would indicate that if you are not, then you have not thought much about how little value naming English as "the official language" (at least as you are defining it) would have to accomplish the goal which you offer as the goal... or about how we have gotten along fine for more than 200 years without naming English as "the official language."

The only thing naming English as "the official language" would actually accomplish is to make xenophobes feel good.  Now, if the shoe fits, I am not trying to stop you from wearing it, though I am also not suggesting that it does fit or even asking that you try it on.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 30, 2011, 11:31:17 pm
"I think that having english as the official language is a good idea.  All official documents should be in english only, and schools should be taught in english only. "

This was my first comment on the subject.  When you consider my statement that all official documents should be in english, why in the world would you interpret the second statement to mean that I included private schools?  There is nothing official about private schools.

The term "official" might have been a tip off for you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 31, 2011, 06:25:55 am
Only seeing half the argument, I still need to inject because of my background, the fact that most private schools west of Ohio began as Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed because people wished to continue their native tongues while learning English.  Most Lutheran schools were conducted in German, Reformed in Dutch, Catholic in German, Italian, or Polish.  One of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions concerned the state of Nebraska trying to shut down a small Lutheran school because it allowed German to be spoken.  The school won.

The big distinguisher here, however, is these schools were not founded to circumvent English.  The goal was still to learn English.   My grandfather, in 1900, became chairman of the local school board in North Dakota and insisted on housing the teacher.  Why?  Because he barely spoke English and it was his chance to get better along with his whole family.  In my opinion that's what's different today.  Many immigrants have no such desire.

Sorry to have butted in.  Bet that has nothing to do with your argument.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2011, 08:32:20 am
Dave, you are now changing your position.

I asked questions of you after that first post from you to determine just what you did mean by "official language," and what you thought such a designation would do.

You responded by saying I had not been following the entire conversation because if I had, then your comments in context would have made clear what you were referring to.  I then pointed out that there was really no "entire conversation" to follow, since you were responding to MY post, where I made no reference to "government action."  Now you say your use of the word "official" should have answered everything.... but it doesn't.

Some folks who want English as the "official language," want it as the only language which can be used in in public, or which can be used in any school, or would effectively require that if they required all children to be educated in schools that met state standards which were all English based.

My questions were perfectly reasonable.

I suggest that just like your over-reaction and assumption that I had referred to you as xenophobic, you over-reacted to my questions asking you to clarify your position.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2011, 12:13:11 pm
I have never met, or heard about any person that believes that "English as the official language" would require English to be the only language to be spoken in public.  If anyone believes that private schools should only be taught in English, I haven't run across them.

I believe that all Official government business should be conducted in English, Roadside signs should be in English (now ask if "San Francisco" should be rendered into English), as well as all licensing such as driver's licences should be tested in English.  And all public schools should be taught in English (yes, Spanish can be taught in English).

If it requires a constitutional amendment, they let's have one that accomplishes it.

Court proceedings should be conducted in English, with interpreters as necessary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2011, 01:07:03 pm
Dave, court proceedings ARE conducted in English.  And if you are wanting to give the federal government control over what language is used in public schools, you will have just trashed the already seriously damaged the system of federalism we now have, because if the feds can determine what language is being used, it can (and would) also determine curriculum, teaching methods, salaries, and teachers might as well become federal employees.  As to roadside signs needing to be in English.... if there are any places where they are NOT in English (and I have never seen them), my guess is that it was done to make the roads safer because they would be more readily understood in whatever language was used (strange how some kooky people think that the primary goal of road sings should be to keep the roads safe and facilitate traffic flow instead of pressuring everyone to learn and use a unifying language....)

It is much the same with having the written portion of a driver's license exam in some language other than English.  You are not harmed by that in any way, and it helps assure that those who can drive and know the rules of the road are allowed to get a license and that those who can not do not.  If a state chooses to undertake the added financial burden of that, that decision it that state's choice; and while I would support having the person needing the materials in another language pay for providing them in that language, it is not something to tamper with the Constitution about.

Oh, and if you are unaware of anyone calling for ALL schools in this country to be taught in English, or for ONLY English to be spoken in public, you need to get out more.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 31, 2011, 01:15:07 pm
"If anyone believes that private schools should only be taught in English, I haven't run across them."

You would have way back when.  1896, I think it was.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on August 31, 2011, 02:11:02 pm
It was Meyer v. Nebraska, Curt.  It was during a nativist wave that accompanied WWI.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2011, 02:23:23 pm
We have suffered with such nativist waves several times in our history.  The current one is clearly not new.  My favorite, however, if only because the political party it organized behind had such a wonderfully appropriate name, was in the 1840's -- the Know Nothing party.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 31, 2011, 02:30:26 pm
Correct, East, but it started years earlier...but that's the right case.  As a Lutheran edgukator I was well versed.  :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2011, 03:55:07 pm
Jes - once again, I am saying what the policy should be.  If it requires an amendment, so be it.

Unconstitutional is not an issue when talking about what SHOULD be.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2011, 04:07:04 pm
Dave, removing the issue of the constitutionality entirely, as I have pointed out, designating English as the "official language," without requiring that it be the only language spoken in public and that it be the only language used to teach schools, even private schools, would do nothing.... other than allow the xenophobes who want to thump their chest to feel good about it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2011, 10:53:11 pm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/early_obama_letter_confirms_inability_to_write.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2011, 11:10:44 pm
Dave, removing the issue of the constitutionality entirely, as I have pointed out, designating English as the "official language," without requiring that it be the only language spoken in public and that it be the only language used to teach schools, even private schools, would do nothing.... other than allow the xenophobes who want to thump their chest to feel good about it.

You are wrong, Jes.  Doing government business only in English and teaching public schools only in English would have a substantial effect over time.  And Xenophobes (of which there are very few) would have nothing to do with it.  People can and should be allowed to speak any language they wish in public, as they are now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2011, 07:55:29 am
You think there are few xenophobes?  You REALLY need to get out more.

Teaching public schools in English is already so close to what is seen, that it would be an infinitely small change, having even less of an effect.  Just how would you thing either that or doing government business only in English would have "a substantial effect over time," particularly when from your prior posts you would NOT have the federal government impose this requirement on states or municipalities, but only on the federal government?  (And imagine for a moment the lunacy of it.... we just had a hurricane skirt the east coast and in several areas government officials urged people to evacuate for their own safety.  If such notice had been provided in largely Hispanic speaking communities, I would hope the notices [which would be official government business] would be in both English and Spanish.  If a cop interviews a witness to a murder, the cop is without question conducting "official government business, and if the witness speaks Spanish or Scandanavian or Korean or even a truly backward language like Dutch, I would hope the law enforcement agency would TRY to find someone to speak that language for the interview.... and would the "official government business of CIA or Homeland Security interviews of Afghan terror suspects be in English or the guy's native language?).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2011, 11:41:53 am
Few is a relative term. 

As, it seems, is xenophobia.  How do you define it?

And I have no problem with Cops talking in a foreign language, if they know the language.  That does not come under my definition of "doing business".  Nor do I have a problem with questioning witnesses in their native language, if practical.  All those things are done for the convenience of the government, not the individual.

But the federal government should not do things to make it convenient for people to live in this country for long periods of time without learning the language.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2011, 01:29:14 pm
So now you are only talking about the federal government?

And if so, where is there a federal role in requiring states to do anything in public schools, other than treating students without any prohibitted discrimination?

How do I define xenophobia?  Oh, the dictionary definition is fine by me.

wikipedia seems to do a good job: "an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange"

Dictionary definitions of xenophobia include: deep-rooted antipathy towards foreigners (Oxford English Dictionary; OED), unreasonable fear or hatred of the unfamiliar, especially people of other races (Webster's)[5]
The Dictionary of Psychology defines it as "a fear of strangers".[6] As defined by the OED, it can mean a fear of or aversion to, not only people from other countries, but other cultures, subcultures and subsets of belief systems; in short, anyone who meets any list of criteria about their origin, religion, personal beliefs, habits, language, orientations, or any other criteria. While some will state that the "target" group is a set of persons not accepted by the society, in reality only the phobic person need hold the belief that the target group is not (or should not be) accepted by society. While the phobic person is aware of the aversion (even hatred) of the target group, they may not identify it or accept it as a fear.
A clinical definition is:[clarification needed] An irrational fear of members of a certain race foreign to one's own, often adjunct and secondary to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2011, 01:53:25 pm
So now you are only talking about the federal government?

And if so, where is there a federal role in requiring states to do anything in public schools, other than treating students without any prohibitted discrimination?


The federal role comes in when the federal government gives money to local governments to run their schools.  IF the federal government is going to do this, it is reasonable to place restrictions and requirements on those local governments.

You use "xenophobic" in the same way that liberals use "racist".  If someone disagrees with you on policy, they are "Xenophobic".  It is a convenient way to attack the other side without resorting to facts or logic.

I am prescribing policy.  You are arguing legislation.  Using your techniques, you would have told the founding fathers that they shouldn't include "freedom of speech" in the constitution because that would allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or allow unbridled slander and libel.  All the crap you bring up can easily be dealt with, keeping in mind the purpose of the law, which would be to encourage immigrants to assimilate into the country as fast as reasonable.

Teaching public schools in a foreign language does not do that.  Nor does giving drivers license tests and other official actions do so.

If it requires a constitutional amendment, then one should be passed.  If it requires all 50 states pass a constitutional amendment, they they should do so.

If they do not do so, that does not negate the need for it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 01, 2011, 02:00:35 pm
Petty point but freedom of speech is not in the Constitution.  It is in the Bill of Rights.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2011, 02:09:49 pm
Almost true.  The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution, just like all the other amendments.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2011, 02:41:35 pm
By the way, Jes - it is starting to look like the Cubs might not win their division this year.  If you are going to be around in early October, we can meet so you can collect.

And if you are still unemployed, I can write it off my taxes.  Don't send any resumes out until then.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2011, 03:57:03 pm
The federal role comes in when the federal government gives money to local governments to run their schools.  IF the federal government is going to do this, it is reasonable to place restrictions and requirements on those local governments.

This is like arguing that the government should impose restrictions on your diet and lifestyle choices since it pays the medical bills of a lot of folks.  Government should not be allowed to assert powers it does not have, and OUGHT not have, just because it assumes a financial role it is not required to fill.  And beyond that, what you are wanting required (that all public schools are taught in English) is wanting to address a problem which does not exist.

You use "xenophobic" in the same way that liberals use "racist".  If someone disagrees with you on policy, they are "Xenophobic".  It is a convenient way to attack the other side without resorting to facts or logic.

Except for two points....  The first is that I am using the word xenophobic exactly as it is meant to be used, and using the dictionary definition of the term.  The second is that I have not called you xenophobic, or said that English as the official language should be rejected because such a policy would be xenophobic, or said that anyone support English as an official language are xenophobic..... So, yea, I guess other than those things, you might be right.

Dave, you are an intelligent guy.  You are capable of reading and understanding what is written.  Read what I wrote, and find ANYTHING in it in which I said you were xenophobic, or that supporting English as the official language is xenophobic.  I have addressed the reasons you have given for it, pointed out the problems with those reasons, and argued that such a law would do nothing of value OTHER THAN TO MAKE XENOPHOBES FEEL GOOD.

If you can not distinguish what I wrote, from what you are suggesting I wrote.... then perhaps Dutch was spoken a bit too long in your home and you didn't learn English early enough.

I am prescribing policy.  You are arguing legislation.  Using your techniques, you would have told the founding fathers that they shouldn't include "freedom of speech" in the constitution because that would allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or allow unbridled slander and libel.  All the crap you bring up can easily be dealt with,

Except for the "crap" about such a law not furthering the goal you seek to advance, and that government is already able to do everything you want it to do.  Yea, except for that "crap."  You know, the kind where someone addresses the merits of another person's argument.

.....to encourage immigrants to assimilate into the country as fast as reasonable.

Teaching public schools in a foreign language does not do that.  Nor does giving drivers license tests and other official actions do so.

Is there any real evidence immigrants today are assimilating any more slowly than in prior generations?  Not talking about anectdotal stories, but real evidence.  And if the drivers license is something issued by a STATE and not the federal government (a state could even allow folks to use its roads without requiring a drivers license), shouldn't a state be free to decide to accommodate those in the state by allowing them to take the written portion of the driving test in whatever language they desire?  What is being tested is not command of the English language, or ability to read, but knowledge of the rules of the road.  In most states they even make provisions for people who can not read at all (an illiterate or dyslexic person is often allowed to have the exam read to them aloud).  Are you suggesting that should also not be done?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2011, 03:58:50 pm
By the way, Jes - it is starting to look like the Cubs might not win their division this year. 

Just "starting"???
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2011, 04:39:56 pm
Once again, you miss the point, Jes.  I never said that YOU said that I was xenophobic.  I merely said that you use the term xenophobic the way liberals use the word racist.

Whether or not a "xenophobic person" rejoiced in making English the official language was irrelevant to the discussion, and your using the term was merely a rhetorical attempt to win an argument.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2011, 04:40:52 pm
And yes, at this point it is looking possible that the Cubs will not win the division.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Tuffy on September 02, 2011, 11:06:18 am
I spotted a non-English road sign a while ago:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/MUTCD_W20-1_(metric).svg/120px-MUTCD_W20-1_(metric).svg.png)

Clearly, this cannot be allowed to stand.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2011, 11:31:49 am
Tuffy, I know you were not seriously wading into this.... but that road sign illustrates my point.

The purpose of road signs is NOT to foster national cohesiveness by encouraging folks to learn English.  The purpose of road signs is to make the damb roads safe.  While I can't imagine a situation in which you would not want road signs to at least ALSO be in English, if a state of local community concludes that the roads will be safer if the signs are in Spanish or French or Ukranian, then it would make sense to have the signs in that language.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 02, 2011, 02:33:47 pm
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.

The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2011, 04:56:13 pm
So instead of having peer review criticism, the Global Warmists pressure those who even publish anything to be reviewed when it questions the orthodoxy of the religious fervor of the Warmists.

Not that there is any pressure for groupthink or anything like that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 04, 2011, 01:47:06 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/04/ireland.vatican.sex.abuse/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Are clergy in the US legally required to report admissions of illegal acts told to them "in confidence" (e.g., during confession)?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 04, 2011, 02:09:40 pm
P2, like licensed mental health professionals and lawyers, certified church workers are bound to a code of confidentiality regarding anything told them.  There are odd exceptions, particularly when it comes to the life and welfare of others or threats of suicide, but it, even there, it's tricky.

One thing, there are many in church work who think this extends to everyone.  It does not.  That's why I said "certified."  I can't get an online degree from the Church of What's Happening Now and then claim confidentiality when someone talks to me.  In an imaginary example, I may be a certified guidance counselor in a Christian school, but the confidentiality I keep stops where the law begins.  For example, I do not have to share that Jimmy and Linda are having sex, unless Jimmy is 27 and Linda is 14...then I become a mandatory reporter and Jimmy is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 05, 2011, 01:12:09 am
I wish you would stop slamming the Church of What's Happening Now.  Their Missouri Synod is quite conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 05, 2011, 08:08:28 am
Dave, the Missouri Synod is far from What's Happening Now.  Far.  They are much more into What Happened Yesterday.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 05, 2011, 02:33:29 pm
AGNOSTIC!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 05, 2011, 02:51:27 pm
I am NOT an agnostic.  At least I don't think I am.  I just don't know.  Maybe.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 05, 2011, 04:28:29 pm
Did you hear what happened to the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on September 12, 2011, 03:14:14 pm
I agree with Tuffy. That sign needs to be removed and replaced with one that actually tells you the distance....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 12, 2011, 04:50:15 pm
He stayed up all night wondering if DOG exists. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on September 13, 2011, 03:46:31 am
watched a few clips of the republican debate. romney seemed to me to be much more natural. i hope that continues, cause he's the best bet for a conservative in the white house, imo.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2011, 06:28:03 am
watched a few clips of the republican debate. romney seemed to me to be much more natural. i hope that continues, cause he's the best bet for a conservative in the white house, imo.

That would first require him to make a conversion to being a conservative.

While Romney might have a better chance against Obama in the general election, right now any of them would beat Obama, and the odd are that will even more be the case in November of next year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on September 13, 2011, 06:35:47 am
Not one of the Republican contenders has a chance of winning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on September 13, 2011, 07:09:48 am
Any popular Entertainer could win election in this screwed-up voting populace
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 13, 2011, 08:04:04 am
I like Ron Paul, but when Santorum brought up that a blog on Paul's website on 9/11 seemed to imply ratification of Osama Bin Laden's claim that America brought 9/11 on itself, Paul looked flustered.  I'm wondering if he was aware someone blogged that.  And then when he tried to explain and the audience started booing, he looked even more flustered.  He's used to getting cheers.  Hope that gets clarified today.

I find it interesting that when one of the "governors" tries to explain that something they did in their state because it was the best thing for their state but that it may not be best for the whole nation, it gets treated like a weakness.  I think it should be a strength.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on September 13, 2011, 12:09:36 pm
Paul's campaign got shot all to h ell last night. Attempting to clarify Al Qaeda's position is never going to be a successful strategy for winning the Presidency.

Perry found out what it felt like to be Tim Pawlenty last night. Bachmann didn't even let Santorum finish his work. Considering the economic environment, I expect there to be some serious sting in the charge she made regarding Merck and crony capitalism.

Cain is entertaining, but he sounds like he's selling a pizza deal for the economy.
"Call now! 9 pizzas, 9 toppings, 9 bucks apiece!"

Huntsman should be replaced in these debates by McCotter or Roemer. Seriously, they couldn't be any less relevant than he is.

Gingrich continues to be the smartest individual on the stage. If he could be convinced that Hawaii isn't a good base of campaign operations, he could still run away with this thing.

Santorum finally got more than garbage time last night. He's punching in all the right places, the question is whether he can coalesce so-cons here in Iowa like Huckabee did. If he doesn't win Iowa, his show is over.

Romney is Romney. Still the frontrunner IMO. He's the only relevant moderate in the race. Until and unless someone takes charge amidst the Tea Party/So-Con groups, Romney likely wins by default.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2011, 01:00:19 pm
Paul's campaign got shot all to h ell last night. Attempting to clarify Al Qaeda's position is never going to be a successful strategy for winning the Presidency.

Perry found out what it felt like to be Tim Pawlenty last night. Bachmann didn't even let Santorum finish his work. Considering the economic environment, I expect there to be some serious sting in the charge she made regarding Merck and crony capitalism.

Cain is entertaining, but he sounds like he's selling a pizza deal for the economy.
"Call now! 9 pizzas, 9 toppings, 9 bucks apiece!"

Huntsman should be replaced in these debates by McCotter or Roemer. Seriously, they couldn't be any less relevant than he is.

Gingrich continues to be the smartest individual on the stage. If he could be convinced that Hawaii isn't a good base of campaign operations, he could still run away with this thing.

Santorum finally got more than garbage time last night. He's punching in all the right places, the question is whether he can coalesce so-cons here in Iowa like Huckabee did. If he doesn't win Iowa, his show is over.

Romney is Romney. Still the frontrunner IMO. He's the only relevant moderate in the race. Until and unless someone takes charge amidst the Tea Party/So-Con groups, Romney likely wins by default.

One of the reasons I support Paul is that he is not going to change his position based on what is popular at the moment, or to a given audience.  He takes principled positions, and most voters appreciate that, if only because it is so uncommon.  If the election had been held immediately after the debate, you are right, those responses from him would have buried him.  Fortunately for the nation the election is still well off.  The more folks actually start to think about what he said, the more he gets to explain it, the further we get from 9/11's 10th anniversary, and the more often voters get to look at the smarmy expression Santorum displayed to Paul's position (and which Santorum will continue to display), the better Paul will look to many voters.  That response did not hurt him at all.  It ultimately will likely help him.

Bachmann and Perry likely both suffered from their exchange, but Bachmann will probably suffer more, because she took the same attack-**** mode with Pawlenty and will come to be viewed as downright unpleasant.  Bachmann will also suffer from being wrong on the facts, and KNOWING she was wrong, and still pressing it.  My wife, who watches things more closely than most voters, but nothing near as close as I do, kept saying "something's wrong about that" in reference to Bachmann's claims, and finally came to reconcile it for herself that what was "wrong" was the claim from Bachmann that it was a "mandatory" program forcing  girls to be vaccinated when there were in fact opt out provisions.  Another visceral conflict many will have to Bachmann's position is that she was supposedly taking it as a matter of "principle" in opposition to the government forcing anyone to be vaccinated for anything.  Now *I* actually do hold that position, but it is pretty clear Bachmann does not, or she would also have raised a stink about the mandatory vaccination for measles, smallpox, etc.... and she does not (I do).  Bachmann will start to acquire a foul smell about her.

Gingrich has turned in strong debate performances each time, and if he continues to do so, he could become a serious factor in the race.  I initially supported Paul or Johnson or Huntzman, because of the libertarian leanings of each of them.  Huntzman is now off my list because of statements which often have him sounding as if he could very readily support massive government programs (like cap and tax or other foolishness to "deal with" the "Global Warming" he has bought into), and Johnson seems to have gotten lost.  Perry would be tolerable, and I do like the way he has been very direct in addressing the fraud which we call Social Security.  And Newt, who I initially thought was making a mistake to run, is looking better each time he debates.

But Romney is no longer the front-runner.  Perry clearly is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 13, 2011, 02:24:00 pm
Perry's immigration record is atrocious.  He has taken a great situation in a very conservative state and made it worse.  He doubled spending, raised taxes and gave huge grants to his top donors time and again.  He is known for his pay-to-play tendencies.  I am still trying to figure out what he meant regarding Afghanistan;  we should pull our troops as quickly as possible? Isn't that to the left of Obama?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 13, 2011, 03:09:16 pm
Perry's views on illegal aliens is terrible.  But it is the only issue on which I strongly disagree with him.  I still think he is the odds on choice to be the republican nominee, and the odds on choice to be the next president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on September 13, 2011, 04:16:09 pm
Ugh.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 13, 2011, 04:18:32 pm
The only other likely alternative is Romney, and I would prefer someone that is a conservative on most issues than one that is a conservative on only a few issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on September 13, 2011, 04:40:03 pm
Perry will eventually have his version of the Jeremiah Wright issue to deal with.  He really associated with some awful religious nuts (American Family Association, the International House of Prayer, and John Hagee, for starters) to pull off his prayer meeting a few weeks ago.  These people are just as scary to me than Jeremiah Wright.  And Perry seems to be far more engaged in his religion than Obama ever was in his.

Perry also has an anti-science attitude (for example, his stance on evolution/creationism) that comes straight out of the 19th century.  His far, far right religious leanings will be hard for independent, fiscally conservative/socially liberal voters to swallow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2011, 05:23:53 pm
Perry's immigration record is atrocious....  I am still trying to figure out what he meant regarding Afghanistan;  we should pull our troops as quickly as possible? Isn't that to the left of Obama?

Perry is the governor of Texas.  He HAS no "immigration record."  He does not determine immigration policy or enforce it, nor is he in a position to try to do so.

We should get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, whether you want to call that position "right" or "left" does not alter what we should do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 13, 2011, 06:03:48 pm
I didn't realize that whether/when to pull our troups was a liberal-conservative issue.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2011, 07:08:32 pm
I didn't realize that whether/when to pull our troups was a liberal-conservative issue.

Particularly when we don't have the money to keep them there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2011, 07:11:06 pm
Perry's views on illegal aliens is terrible.

How so?  He has made very clear that the first thing that needs to be done is to secure the border, and has urged the use of federal troops to do so.

What is "terrible" about his view on "illegals"?

And without regard to illegals, what do you believe our immigration policy should be, and why?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2011, 07:17:11 pm
Perry will eventually have his version of the Jeremiah Wright issue to deal with.  He really associated with some awful religious nuts (American Family Association, the International House of Prayer, and John Hagee, for starters) to pull off his prayer meeting a few weeks ago.  These people are just as scary to me than Jeremiah Wright.  And Perry seems to be far more engaged in his religion than Obama ever was in his.

There is a rather significant difference between being "associated with" someone and viewing them as a mentor and being tied at the hip to them.  Take the "association" out far enough and virtually anyone is "associated" with anyone else.


Perry also has an anti-science attitude (for example, his stance on evolution/creationism) that comes straight out of the 19th century.  His far, far right religious leanings will be hard for independent, fiscally conservative/socially liberal voters to swallow.

I don't think so.  I am fiscally conservative, am an atheist, am not a Republican... and could care less about his views on evolution or his religious beliefs as he is running for president.  I might have been concerned about them if I had been in Texas and he had been running for governor, where those religious beliefs and their possible influence on school curricula might make a difference (such as requiring teaching creationism), but they make no difference to me when he is running for president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 13, 2011, 09:09:29 pm
Among other things, Perry pushed to give illegal aliens in-state tuition for Texas colleges.  Not a policy that will go over well with those who think that illegal aliens should not be given special privileges in return for their breaking our laws.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 13, 2011, 09:34:29 pm
He is also against a border fence.  He doesn't want employers to E-Verify that their employees are legal and wouldn't support AZ efforts to enforce existing Immigration laws.  His crony capitalism is also going to come out.  He is famous in TX for his pay-to-play tendencies.  The guy is a slimeball and I don't think is likely to be the nominee.  At this point I would vote for Romney who I support, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, and even Bachman.  I can't vote for Perry.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 13, 2011, 09:41:15 pm
I remember sharing a cab with a lady from Texas about 5-6 years ago in Cleveland.  She was supporting Kinky Friedman for governor, and she was pretty adamant about how crooked and what an embarrassment Rick Perry was.  Also, I can't imagine why Kay Bailey Hutchison would have run in a primary against him if he was really all that well regarded as a governor.

Perry just seems like a really weak choice to me.  Honestly even if he is the nominee, I'm not even sure I can vote for someone who floated the idea of secession around.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 13, 2011, 09:45:56 pm
Yeah, I agree, JR, about the secession thing.  Guy has no follow through.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 13, 2011, 09:47:11 pm
Floating the idea of succession is a point in his favor, in my opinion.

He was well regarded enough in Texas to Beat Hutchison in the primaries.

And the fact that the Bush family doesn't like him is also a plus in my opinion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2011, 10:05:08 pm
Among other things, Perry pushed to give illegal aliens in-state tuition for Texas colleges.  Not a policy that will go over well with those who think that illegal aliens should not be given special privileges in return for their breaking our laws.

Not quite accurate, Dave.  First it was not any "illegal alien," but only Texas residents, though it did not make any difference whether the resident was "legal" or "illegal."  There is also a requirement that they came here as a minor, brought by parents, not that they came as adults, and also that they are in the process of working toward citizenship.

It is also important to remember that only four members of the Texas legislature voted against it.

The real question would seem to be whether states should be running colleges in the first place, and if they do, what reasons exist to grant lower tuition rates for residents of the state than non-residents of the state, and if those reasons exist for "illegals," then it makes little sense not to allow them access to the same lower tuition rates.

He is also against a border fence.

He supports securing the border, and putting troops on the border.  He simply doesn't think a border fence is an effective approach.  Not quite the same as saying he would either veto legislation to build one, or refuse to implement such legislation after it has been passed (which is what we have seen from Obama).


He doesn't want employers to E-Verify that their employees are legal

It is a foolish burden to put on employers.


His crony capitalism is also going to come out.  He is famous in TX for his pay-to-play tendencies.

Since you believe you know enough about him to toss the slurs, why not enlighten us with the details?  Tells us just what "crony capitalism" details are going to "come out."  And who paid what to play what and what sources do you have for the claim? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 13, 2011, 10:36:51 pm
Is giving out over 200 grants to major donors businesses and high level positions to donors and their families a point in his favor?  How does a guy grow into a multi-multi millionaire on a low hundreds government job?  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262897285614.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2011, 01:11:24 am
You are quibbling, Jes.  He pushed for a bill that, among other things, gave in state tuition to illegal aliens.  The fact that it also gave it to others is besides the point.

E-verify is not a foolish burden to place on employers.  It is a simple and quick way of deciding if they should hire a person.  I have been told by my brother, who's firm uses it, that it takes less than a couple of minutes.  You are against it, not because it is burdensome, but because it accomplishes something that you do not want done.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 06:05:09 am
Is giving out over 200 grants to major donors businesses and high level positions to donors and their families a point in his favor?  How does a guy grow into a multi-multi millionaire on a low hundreds government job?  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262897285614.html

I'll look at the link and try to respond later.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 06:30:55 am
You are quibbling, Jes.  He pushed for a bill that, among other things, gave in state tuition to illegal aliens.  The fact that it also gave it to others is besides the point.

I am guibbling.... or you are drawing a distinction which makes no difference.

The federal government is responsible for securing the borders and determining immigration policy.  Not the state of Texas.  After our last exchange on this I was thinking of when I enrolled in a state university, and recalled that the school made some serious effort to verify residency, but didn't give a hoot about citizenship.  That is the norm.  Citizenship is an issue of concern to the federal government, not the state government.

Why not get upset that Perry allows "illegals" to use state roads?  Or that he even allows them to call the police and have "good American citizens" criminally prosecuted for violent crimes committed against them?

E-verify is not a foolish burden to place on employers.  It is a simple and quick way of deciding if they should hire a person.  I have been told by my brother, who's firm uses it, that it takes less than a couple of minutes.  You are against it, not because it is burdensome, but because it accomplishes something that you do not want done.

You know why I am against it?

Really?

Dave, I would like our borders secured, and I have no problem with the federal government rounding up anyone who is here illegally and deporting them.  I oppose sanctuary cities and would have no problem with the president sending in federal troops to "un-sanctuary" them.

What is it that the in-state tuition would accomplish which I do not want done?  You earlier got bent out of shape when I accurately pointed out that xenophobes support English as the official language, without saying that is the reason YOU support it, and now, after being offended when you thought I could read your mind, you think you can read my mine.  You are mistaken.  I am not concealing my reason for supporting or opposing anything here.  In case you haven't noticed, I have never quite been worried about winning or losing a popularity contest with my posts -- I don't hesitate to set out the reasons I support or oppose something, regardless how popular or unpopular it is.

As to E-verify's burden, whether it is or isn't burdensome does not make it constitutional, and whether one business considers it burdensome does not mean another would see it the same way.  When I was operating my law office I did not us E-verify before hiring anyone, and philosophic opposition to it was only one of the reasons.  It IS burdensome -- regardless how simple the procedure for using it might be, one first has to LEARN the procedure, and then use it often enough to remain familiar with it.  For larger business operations, where it might be used frequently, I suspect that it might not be particularly burdensome.  For small businesses, every such regulation is burdensome, and the cummulative effect of such regulation creates a drag on the economy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 09:34:57 am
I believe that it was on the predecessor board a couple of years ago that I took the position that airline Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger was not a hero, a great pilot, and quite admirable, but not a hero.  And my memory is that everyone posting disagreed, and rather strongly.

I just stumbled across at least one other person who does agree.

Sullenberger himself.

My wife actually looked it up in the dictionary. We decided between ourselves that it describes someone who chooses to put himself at risk to save another. That didn’t quite fit my situation, which was thrust upon me suddenly. Certainly, my crew and I were up to the task. But I’m not sure it quite crosses the threshold of heroism. I think the idea of a hero is important. But sometimes in our culture we overuse the word, and by overusing it we diminish it.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Q-and-A-Capt-Chelsey-Sully-Sullenberger.html#ixzz1XwBFF7QV
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2011, 10:16:49 am
Jes - you criticized E-verify because it is burdensome.  It isn't burdensome.  You said nothing about it's constitutionality.  If you have arguments in that respect, let's hear them.

Securing the border is a Federal responsibility.  But deciding who is eligible for in-state tuition is a state responsibility, as is deciding if illegal aliens are eligible to work in their state.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 11:48:31 am
Jes - you criticized E-verify because it is burdensome.  It isn't burdensome.  You said nothing about it's constitutionality.  If you have arguments in that respect, let's hear them.

I didn't realize that my first comment was supposed to serve as a limit on future comments.

As to its constitutionality, the federal government is one of limited power.  If there is no specific grant of power to the federal government, the federal government does not have it.  So instead of my trying to prove the negative and exhaustively review each paragraph and line to point out that none of them grant the power, why don't you point out where you would find the power to impose such a burden on employers only doing business within a particular state and who are not engaged in interstate commerce.


Securing the border is a Federal responsibility.  But deciding who is eligible for in-state tuition is a state responsibility, as is deciding if illegal aliens are eligible to work in their state.

We have complete agreement on those points.  And I see nothing to indicate that Perry's positions regarding those make him either unelectable, or undesirable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2011, 12:03:09 pm
I began the discussion by saying that I am in favor of Perry as the republican candidate.  I believe he is electable and desirable.

However, he is not perfect.  I do not agree with his positions on illegal immigrants, and what benefits the states should give them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on September 14, 2011, 01:24:23 pm
ISF, you said Gingrich came across as the smartest guy on stage, and I agree.

I just don't see him as electable, though.

That said, I think he'd make a hell of a VP.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2011, 01:33:56 pm
I was a strong Gingrich advocate until he started trying to "reach across the isle" appearing with Hillary and announcing that he agreed with man-caused global warming.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 01:43:09 pm
ISF, you said Gingrich came across as the smartest guy on stage, and I agree.  I just don't see him as electable, though.   That said, I think he'd make a hell of a VP.

The VP's role is rather ill-defined.  I think Gingrich might be a good president, but a VP generally is desired to help shore up electoral constituencies, or states, and are generally expected to be good soldiers and present the administration line whenever called on to do so.  THAT is a role for which Gingrich would be ill-suited.  The guy thinks, and thinks for himself, and wants to persuade the world he is right.  Not someone a president could count on to present the administration position when Gingrich would come to question it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 14, 2011, 01:45:22 pm
VP would be way too boring of an office for Gingrich.  He'd drive himself and the President both crazy at the same time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 14, 2011, 01:47:40 pm
Gingrich really doesn't need to be in government anymore.  He's one of those guys who is full of ideas but isn't disciplined enough to get many of them implemented.  He's basically doing what he ought to be doing, running a think tank and providing commentary to whatever news shows he's on.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 01:59:07 pm
I began the discussion by saying that I am in favor of Perry as the republican candidate.  I believe he is electable and desirable.  However, he is not perfect.  I do not agree with his positions on illegal immigrants, and what benefits the states should give them.

Not sure who began the discussion or what difference it makes, but the benefits a state does or doesn't give anyone might be a very important issue in determining who to support for governor, but that would not seem to make much difference in determining to to support for president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2011, 02:24:58 pm
True, but the principle certainly is important.  If a person is willing to give special rights to illegal aliens when he is a governor, he may well do the same thing as president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 14, 2011, 02:41:06 pm
Gingrich really doesn't need to be in government anymore.  He's one of those guys who is full of ideas but isn't disciplined enough to get many of them implemented.  He's basically doing what he ought to be doing, running a think tank and providing commentary to whatever news shows he's on.

Agree
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 14, 2011, 02:43:27 pm
Gingrich would be an interesting SOS.

Would be worth a few chuckles anyhow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 03:28:39 pm
True, but the principle certainly is important.  If a person is willing to give special rights to illegal aliens when he is a governor, he may well do the same thing as president.

"Special rights"?

I am genuinely unaware of any.  Can you enlighten me?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2011, 05:48:55 pm
The right to pay in-state tuition even though they are not citizens of the state.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 05:53:57 pm
States do not have citizenship.

States have residency.  And the in-state tuition is only allowed for those who are residents of Texas.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2011, 07:37:34 pm
You can play around with words all you want.  The fact remains that no state should allow illegal aliens to go to college in their state and pay in-state tuition.  Perry pushed for a law that allows them to pay in-state tuition.  That was, in my opinion, a very poor exercise of judgement.

Regardless, I will still vote for him in both the primary and if possible, the general election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on September 14, 2011, 07:40:37 pm
Any of the potential Republican nominees will get stomped by Obama in the general election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 08:19:09 pm
Any of the potential Republican nominees will get stomped by Obama in the general election.

Care to phrase that as a bet?  It sounds as if you would be quite happy to bet a steak dinner on the outcome of the 2012 presidential race, with you winning the bet if Obama wins, and with you losing the bet if he does not.

Care to bet that steak dinner?  And if so, please put me down for the first of them, since I believe there might be a number of takers here.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2011, 08:24:20 pm
You can play around with words all you want.

Play with words?

You contended that Perry gave "special rights to illegal aliens when he (was) a governor."  But he did not.  That is not playing around with words.  It is pointing out that you were substantively wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 15, 2011, 06:28:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg


One more example of how government is often far, far less effective at dealing with a problem than NO government but private, unguided, individual effort. As Hanks mentions, the British navy, then the largest and most powerful navy in the world, took 9 days to remove roughly 339K troops from Dunkirk in WWII, with those troops acting under orderly military direction... and on 9/11, in the absolute chaos which followed the collapse of the World Trade Towers, hundreds of private, individual boat and ferry owners acted on their own, with no coordination, to evacuate nearly half a million New Yorkers from Manhatten within 9 hours. Government could not have done so well if it had tried. Roads, bridges and subways were all shut down.... and half a million people got off of that island by boat before sunset.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 16, 2011, 01:13:35 pm
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Milton Friedman
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 20, 2011, 04:11:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1Jzdghjk
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2011, 04:19:12 pm
Remember how Global Warming was going to cause the sea levels to rise and wipe out coastal communities all over the world?

Remember how Obama on locking up the Democratic nomination announced in a speech on June 3, 2008, that in the future:

we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

Remember that?  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912VD200&show_article=1

Well, even thought he hasn't ended any war, increased our involvement in Afghanistan and got us involved in an entirely new war in Libya, and even though you would be hard pressed to find anyone thinking there have been "good jobs (provided) to the jobless," and only Obama supporters believe ObamaCare will "provide care for the sick," it appears that his most audacious claim (slowing the rise of the oceans) may actually have happened.

Actually better than just slowing it.  The sea levels have been FALLING about 5 MM a year for the last couple of years.  An observation beginning within months of Obama taking office.  http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/sea-level-continues-historic-decline  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/weather-cycles-cause-a-drop-in-global-sea-level-scientists-find/2011/08/25/gIQA6IeaeJ_story.html    (The man really is a miracle worker.)

But what does this say about Global Warming?

Remember that the seas were going to rise because the planet was warming, and would continue rising until all of the ice melted as a result of the warming.  And that is one of the reasons we all have to give the federal government more more to control our lives, limit our freedoms, and take control of big chunks of the economy....

Only.... if the oceans are not rising.... wouldn't that also mean that the globe is not warming... or that the entire global warming BS is.... well, BS?

And wouldn't that mean the justification for expanding government power over the economy and our lives in order to prevent Global Warming is no longer there?  No Global Warming == no justification to expand government power to deal with Global Warming (and of course even if there WERE Global Warming, that would not necessarily justify expanding government power, but that's a different discussion).

So perhaps those of us who support limited government should actually applaud Obama for keeping his pledge about the rising oceans, and his further weakening the house of cards argument the Global Warmists have offered to expand government.

Three cheers for Obama!!!!

Hip, Hip Hooray!!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 21, 2011, 05:32:46 pm
You are missing the main point.  Man-caused global warming is a religion, not a science.  Facts have nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 23, 2011, 10:28:33 am
None of this is a comment on how *I* view Perry, but instead is a comment on what I believe is happening with his campaign, particularly with his Tea Party/evangelical base....

I think he has toasted himself.

In last night's debate he claimed that the reason he had ordered the Guardasil vaccinations was NOT because of lobbying by Merck, or his former chief of staff who was then lobbying for Merck, and before he had claimed that he had only gotten $5K in campaign contributions from Merck.  Last night he said he ordered the vaccinations because he was lobbied by a 32 year old woman who was dying of cervical cancer.

Sounded pretty powerful.

Problem is that he never met that woman until AFTER he had announced that order.  In other words, he did NOT get "lobbied" by her.  In other words.... he lied.  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-perry-met-dying-woman-after-hpv-vaccine-mandate/

Add that to other reports about the actual campaign contributions from Merck, which were WAY higher than $5K,  and reports about how the most of the new jobs of the touted Texas job growth have been jobs for immigrants http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/study-most-new-texas-jobs-went-immigrants (both legal and illegal), and also his utterly terrible response to questions about the in-state tuition "break" given to "illegals," and I think he has toasted himself.  I think he is done.

The terrible response on the in-state tuition issue involves his failure to make clear that it is NOT what it is being presented as being.  It is being presented by his opponents and critics as a program set up specially for "illegals," attracting them to go to college in Texas from all over  the country, as if an 18 year old illegal in California can simply head to Texas in the fall after finishing high school and get an in-state tuition break set up to benefit any illegal anywhere.  That is simply not the case.  It is a program offering in-state tuition for any Texas resident.  Whether the student is in this country legally or not is not something schools generally are concerned with, and Texas merely openly addressed the issue, but it is in-state tuition ONLY for Texas residents, just as it had always been.  His failure to explain that was serious.  Not just because of the mistaken impression it leaves voters with, but because it indicates he has real difficulty in quickly seeing the heart of an issue and how to explain it.

Then, while I know it is small, there is the photo of him, a married man, riding a motorcycle with the attractive 32 year old woman with cervical cancer riding on the back of the bike.... and NEITHER wearing helmets.  That is simply bad optics.

(http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ht_rick_perry_heather_burcham_motorcycle_thg_110915_wblog.jpg)




http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/study-most-new-texas-jobs-went-immigrants
>
> ORLANDO --
>
> With both jobs and immigration likely topics of sharp debate at tonight's Republican debate here in Florida, a new report suggests that newly-arrived immigrants have filled a majority of new jobs created in Texas, home to Republican frontrunner Gov. Rick Perry.
>
> "Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal)," says the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates reduced levels of both legal and illegal immigration.  The report estimates that about 40 percent of the new jobs were taken by illegal immigrants, while 40 percent were taken by legal immigrants.  The vast majority of both groups, legal and illegal, were not American citizens.
>
> Native-born Americans filled just 20 percent of the new jobs in Texas, the report says, even though "the native born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas' working-age population." "Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants," the report concludes.
>
> The report is based on analysis of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey.
>
> The study notes that 56 percent of newly-arrived immigrants in Texas since 2007 have had a high-school degree or less.  But it also notes that "More than one out three…of newly arrived immigrants who took a job had at least some college."  It would be a mistake, the report concludes, "to assume that immigrants are only competing for jobs at the bottom end of the labor market."
>
> On the issue of immigration, Gov. Perry has been the target of criticism from some rivals because he opposes building a border fence and opposes E-Verify, while he supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants as well as a guest-worker program.  Rival Mitt Romney has made clear that he disagrees with Perry on each of those positions, and it's likely that the issue will arise again in the Orlando debate.
>
> In a press release accompanying the study, the Center for Immigration Studies makes a clear effort to cast doubt on Perry's record.  The relevant portion of that release:
>
>     As Republicans go through the process of selecting their party’s nominee, job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn has been the subject of much discussion. GOP frontrunner Perry has argued that he has a proven record of job creation in his state, even during the current economic downturn. It is true that Texas is one of the only states where the number of people working has increased during the recession. What has not been acknowledged is that immigrants have been the primary beneficiaries of this job growth, not native-born Americans. About 40 percent job growth went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and another 40 percent to new legal immigrants.
>
>     Some may argue that it was the arrival of immigrants in the state that stimulated what job growth there was for natives. But, if immigration stimulates job growth for natives, the numbers in Texas would look very different. The unemployment rate and the employment rate (share holding job) of natives in Texas show a dramatic deterioration during the recession that is similar to the rest of the country. Among the native-born, Texas ranks 22nd in terms of unemployment and 29th in terms of its employment rate. Outside of Texas many of the top immigrant-receiving states have the worst economies. Unemployment in the 10-top immigrant-receiving states in 2011 averaged 8.7 percent, compared to 7.2 percent on average in the 10 states where the fewest immigrants arrived since 2007. These figures do not settle the longstanding debate over the economics of immigration. What they do show is that high immigration is not necessarily associated with positive labor market outcomes for the! native-born.
>
>     Some may still feel that less-educated immigrants who work at the bottom of the labor market do not really compete with natives. It is true that 56.8 percent of newly arrived immigrants had no more than a high school education. However, there are more than 3 million native-born workers in Texas who have no more than a high school education. Between 2007 and 2011 the number of native-born Texans with a high school degree or less not working increased by 259,000 and their unemployment rates nearly doubled. It would be very difficult to find evidence that less-educated workers were in short supply in the state.
>
>     It must also be remembered that many immigrants are more educated. In fact, 43.2 percent (97,000) of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas had at least some college. Thus it would a mistake to assume that immigrants are only competing for jobs at the bottom end of the labor market.
>

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/09/13/rick_perry_merck_gop_frontrunner_downplayed_connection_to_the_hp.html
>
> But after running the numbers, theWashington Post reports that Perry’s financial ties to the drug company total much more than the $5,000 that the GOP frontrunner cited.
>
> Perry’s gubernatorial campaign has received nearly $30,000 from the drug giant since 2000, and most of it prior to his 2007 executive order mandating the vaccine, the Postreports, citing figures from the Center for Responsive Politics. Merck has also given more than $355,000 in donations to the Republican Governors Association since 2006, the year that Perry assumed a prominent role in the group. Perry served as the chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year leading up to his presidential bid.
>
> The ties between Perry and Merck run deeper still, according to the report. Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff, was working as an Austin-based lobbyist for Merck at the time Perry bypassed the Texas state legislature and issued his executive order. Today, Toomey is one of the founders of the pro-Perry PAC Make Us Great Again, which can accept unlimited donations and plans to raise upwards of $55 million dollars to help Perry win the GOP nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-has-deep-financial-ties-to-maker-of-hpv-vaccine/2011/09/13/gIQAVKKqPK_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
>
> But campaign disclosure records portray a much deeper financial connection with Merck than Perry’s remarks suggest.
>
> His gubernatorial campaigns, for example, have received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of that before he issued his vaccine mandate, which was overturned by the Texas legislature.
>
> Merck and its subsidiaries have also given more than $380,000 to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) since 2006, the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
>
> Perry served as chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year, until he decided to run for president. The group ranks among the governor’s biggest donors, giving his campaign at least $4 million over the past five years, according to Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group....
>
> The vaccine episode also underscores the close ties between Perry and his largest donors, many of whom have given millions of dollars to his campaigns and the RGA. In a report released Tuesday, Texans for Public Justice said that 32 percent of the $217 million collected at the RGA during the past five years, when Perry held several leadership roles with the group, came from 139 donors to his gubernatorial campaigns.

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/5546651.html
>
> The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil _ at $360 for the three-shot regimen _ were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
>
> Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on September 23, 2011, 04:43:49 pm
You can start the funeral procession for Bachmann's campaign. This is just south of her "home town" of Waterloo.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0911/Bachmanns_coattails.html?showall

Rollins has her campaign pegged. The money has dried up and she has been overshadowed by Perry as the new media darling.
The glamour bus has been scrapped. They are in minivans now.
Refusing to admit she mis-stepped on her Gardisil comment when Wallace read her the direct quote probably finished the job.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 23, 2011, 04:54:08 pm
I think your candidate has done very well for himself ISF.  I don't know if he can win this time around but he has made himself enough of a name to be a force in future elections.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 23, 2011, 05:05:15 pm
Perry's numbers on Intrade went from a 2 point lead to down by 15 last night which has to be a record.  I think (and many analysts agree with me) that last night signaled the end of Perry's campaign.  I always thought his campaign would flame out from the beginning.  He has so many more problems that are not even out there yet.  Do a search for Convergen Lifesciences Inc.  Their CEO gave $80,000 to Perry and then received 4.5 million from the state and went bankrupt.  The CEO had invested only $1,000 of his own money and had been rejected by the review board of the state but Perry overruled the board and granted the reward anyway. There are many more stories like this.  The guy is a pay-to-play corrupt crony.  I could vote for anyone but him in the general.  The Dallas News has more.  http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20101003-perry_s-tech-fund-aided-firms-with-ties-to-his-donors.ece
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 23, 2011, 05:36:30 pm
I love this from the dallasnews link story:

In an interview with The News, Perry said he usually does not know if his campaign supporters have financial interests in the companies that get tech fund money. "From time to time, I may know someone who has an interest in a project. That is a pretty rare occurrence," he said.
However, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said in an e-mail that applicants for technology funding must provide full financial disclosure to the governor's staff, including the names of investors.
The governor said he does not look at these disclosures when deciding whether to approve an award. He added: "Whether they contribute to my campaign or not has nothing to do with whether or not the project is appropriate" for funding.


So you have to ask.... if the identity of the investors is not a factor, why does the gov require that information before making a decision on the application?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 24, 2011, 02:28:24 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnsLFVGOU4Y
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 24, 2011, 02:33:05 pm
That video might give FDISK a stroke....

And for those not wanting to watch the video but prefer reading....  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-economics-of-science   or  http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6168

End Government Science Funding

by Terence Kealey


This article appeared on cato.org on April 11, 1997.

 PRINT PAGE
 CITE THIS
      Sans Serif
     Serif
Share with your friends:

ShareThis
The big myth about scientific research is that government must fund it. The argument is that private companies will not fund science, especially pure science, for fear that their competitors will "capture" the fruits of that investment. Yet, in practice, companies fund pure science very generously, and government funding displaces private research money.

When University of Pennsylvania economist Edwin Mansfield studied the 1960-70 behavior of 16 major American oil and chemical companies, he found that all 16 invested in pure science. The more a firm invested in basic science, the more its productivity grew.

Zvi Griliches of Harvard University, in a study of 911 large American companies, discovered that the companies that engaged in basic research consistently outperformed those that neglected it.

Terence Kealey is professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Cambridge, England, and author of The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.

Most of the benefits of a company's basic science are indeed "captured" by competitors. When Hiroyuki Odagiri and Naoki Murakimi studied the 10 largest Japanese pharmaceutical companies, which collectively enjoyed $13 billion sales in 1981, they found that on average each company had an annual return of 19 percent on its own investment in research and development. But each company obtained the equivalent of a 33 percent annual return on the R&D done by the other nine companies. Each company was, therefore, apparently free riding on the other nine.

But there is no such thing as a free ride in R&D. Only highly skilled research scientists can capture other people's science. And since the best scientists are those who are actually doing research, to retain their services, companies have to fund them with considerable generosity and considerable freedom.

Thus we see that "capture" is the solution to, not the problem of, the industrial exploitation of pure research. Basic science is so vast, worldwide, and so unpredictable that no individual company can hope to cover its own needs. So companies have to fund scientists' in-house pure research to retain their services as agents of capture.

Consequently, the quality of industrial science is remarkable. "Current Contents" magazine recently reviewed the institutions that produced the largest number of cited papers in biology, and two of the top seven were private companies: Genentech and Chiron. The others were charitable foundations. One, the Howard Hughes Foundation, is totally private, while the others three (the Salk and Whitehead Institutes and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) do accept some government money.

That destroys another myth: that only governments will fund scholarship. The rich, as Nietzsche wrote, have a need to give. Only last year David Packard, of Hewlett Packard, left $4 billion to his research foundation. His thousands of philanthropic predecessors include Howard Hughes (whose foundation spent $332 million on research in 1991); W. M. Keck ($95 million); John D. Rockefeller (whose foundation funded both the discovery of DNA as the genetic messenger and the development of penicillin); and Andrew Carnegie.

Ordinary people, too, will fund academic research. Witness the great charities such as the American Heart Association ($105 million in 1991) and the American Cancer Society ($94 million).

Without government funding of science, the United States overtook Britain around 1890 as the richest country in the world. So strenuously did Congress disapprove of federal involvement in research that it refused James Smithson’s bequest in 1829 and only grudgingly accepted it in 1846. (His gift helped establish the Smithsonian Institution.)

War changed everything. The National Academy of Sciences was created in 1863, at the height of the Civil War, to help build ironclads to beat the South. The Office of Scientific Research and Development, which ultimately spawned the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, was created in 1941.

Then the USSR launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957. The Soviets were going to destroy us from space! So in 1958 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created, and the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to pour money into higher education and science. Yet, remarkably, U.S. economic growth was unaffected. The U.S. per capita gross domestic product has grown at around 2 percent a year since 1820, and the government largesse of the last 50 years has not altered that. Why not?

The funding of science is not a political decision; it is economically determined. There is a very tight correlation between the per capita wealth of a country and the quantity and quality of its scientific papers, and of its investment in civil R&D. That is because nations get richer by introducing new technology. A rich country can do that through research, but a poor one can only copy.

Thus leading companies in advanced countries spend increasing amounts of money on research to develop new products. If a company is sited in a country that has low taxes, it simply invests its own money; if it lies in a country with high taxes, it lobbies its government to fund its R&D. Either way, successful companies in rich countries ensure that their research needs are met (though, in practice, companies in low-tax countries can find more money than can those in high-tax countries).

Companies in poor countries, however, ignore research, as their technology is borrowed and they are more interested in basic infrastructural needs such as roads and electricity. Thus the funding of science is an industrial, economically based decision, which only appears to be political.

Further, government funding of university science is largely unproductive. When Edwin Mansfield surveyed 76 major American technology firms, he found that only around 3 percent of sales could not have been achieved "without substantial delay, in the absence of recent academic research." Thus some 97 percent of commercially useful industrial technological development is, in practice, generated by in-house R&D. Academic science is of relatively small economic importance, and by funding it in public universities, governments are largely subsidizing predatory foreign companies.

Scientists may love government money, and politicians may love the power its expenditure confers upon them, but society is impoverished by the transaction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 24, 2011, 02:58:28 pm
I'm convinced that the US and indeed the world would be better off if the public funding of science had never occurred.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 24, 2011, 03:29:02 pm
Rome did reasonably well with public funding of science, but that is about the last example I am aware of in western civilization (the far east may have done better).  Much of the public funding of science in the middle ages was for alchemy, which probably was just about as valuable to society as the research today for "green technology."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 24, 2011, 03:44:57 pm
eh.... I may have been a bit (as in completely) wrong about Rome's "funding" of science.

This is more from Kealey: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003933.html

So unconcerned with research did the Roman State become, that the Emperors actually suppressed technology. Petronius described how: 'a flexible glass was invented, but the workshop of the inventor was completely destroyed by the Emperor Tiberius for fear that copper, silver and gold would lose value'. Suetonius described how: 'An engineer devised a new machine which could haul large pillars at little expense. However the Emperor Vespasian rejected the invention and asked "who will take care of my poor?".' So uncommercial had the Romans become, their rulers rejected increases in productivity. In such a world, advances in science were never going to be translated into technology. Thus we can see that the government funding of ancient science was, in both economic and technological terms, a complete waste of money because the economy lacked the mechanism to exploit it.

The fall of the Roman Empire was frightful. The growth of the Empire had always been based on conquest, and the Empire's economy had been fuelled by the exploitation of new colonies. When the Empire ran out of putative victims, its economy ceased to make sense, particularly as the mere maintenance of the Empire, with its garrisons and its bureaucrats, was so expensive. From the beginning of the second century AD, the State had to raise higher and higher taxes to maintain itself and its armies. It was under the Emperors Hadrian and Trajan, when the Empire was at its largest, that residual freedoms started to get knocked away to ensure that revenue was collected. Special commissioners, curatores, were appointed to run the cities. An army of secret police were recruited from the frumentarii. To pay for the extra bureaucrats, yet more taxes were raised, and the state increasingly took over the running of the economy - almost on ancient Egyptian lines. In AD 301, the Emperor Diocletian imposed fixed wages and prices, by decree, with infractions punishable by death. He declared that 'uncontrolled economic activity is a religion of the godless'. Lanctantius wrote that the edict was a complete failure, that 'there was a great bloodshed arising from its small and unimportant details' and that more people were engaged in raising and spending taxes than in paying them.

The origins of medieval feudalism emerged from the Roman Empire as it decayed. To ensure that the peasants continued to work under an economy which had lost its free-market incentives, Constantine promulgated a law in AD 332 which bound all coloni to the state as serfs. Their children were glebe adscripti, tied to the soil. To reinforce state control on all aspects of the economy, the city trade guilds or collegia imposed compulsory, hereditary trades on all. An edict Of AD 390 forbade children of the workers in the mint to marry outside their caste or trade. The towns shrank, and the population condensed on the patriarchal, self-sufficient, isolated estates that adumbrate the medieval European villages. Indeed, the word 'village' derives from the Latin villa, indicating that the feudal villages originated as the private estates of Roman magnates. And the Roman Catholic Church, once adopted by Constantine as the official religion, started to burn heretics. Religious and intellectual freedom, the great gifts of the Graeco-Roman period, were extinguished. No new technology emerged.

Contrary to myth, the empire did not collapse in the face of unstoppable barbarian hordes. The numbers of barbarians were always small (a mere 80,000 vandals took the whole of Roman Africa in less than a decade). The empire fell because many of its citizens had emigrated to the freer, more pleasant barbarian lands (under the late empire, the population fell from 70 to 50 million) and, crucially, the invading barbarians found themselves welcomed as armies of liberation by vast numbers of oppressed people. The empire had been warned. In De Rebus Bellicus, published anonymously around AD 370, the author called for tax cuts, new technology, and political freedoms: 'In the technical arts, progress is due not to those of the highest birth or immense wealth or public office or eloquence derived from literary studies but solely to men of intellectual power . . . [the barbarians] are by no means considered strangers to mechanical inventiveness.' The author blamed the greed of the rulers for the desperation of the poor: 'This store of gold meant that the houses of the powerful were crammed full and their splendour enhanced to the destruction of the poor, the poorer classes of course being held down by force. But the poor were driven by their afflictions into various criminal enterprises, and losing sight of all respect for the law, all feeling of loyalty, they entrusted their revenge to crime. For they often inflicted the most severe injuries on the Empire, laying waste the fields, breaking the peace with outbursts of brigandage, stirring up animosities, and passing from one crime to another, supported usurpers.' Unfortunately, this very sensible tract was never shown to the Emperor, Valentinian I, even though Ammianus Marcellinus tells us that he was one of the emperors who actually was interested in inventions.

The empire collapsed, not for a lack of Hellenistic science - there was plenty of that - but because it abandoned capitalism. It was a plunder empire, not a market empire. For plunder, it forsook free trade, and it therefore forsook the developments in technology that the free market would have fostered, and it also forsook the development of technologically inspired science. Since new technology is effectively synonymous with economic growth (see the discussion in Chapter 7), we can say that, in modern terms, the empire failed to raise its GDP per capita.

The fall of the Graeco-Roman hegemony teaches that the government funding of academic science will not generate useful technology in the absence of an appropriate, capitalist economy. This is so different from the conventional history that we must underline it. A standard textbook like Buchanan's Technology and Social Progress emphasises, in the author's own italics, on the very second page, that 'A strong state, in short, is a necessary precondition of industrialization' but we have shown that, historically, the reverse is true. In antiquity, it was the strong states that suppressed technology, and the weak ones that fostered it, because the weak ones were too weak to rob individuals of their freedom. As we shall see, it took the Dark Ages and their attendant chaos to liberate the human spirit and so fructify commerce, technology and a healthy science.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on September 25, 2011, 03:52:19 pm
I'm convinced that the US and indeed the world would be better off if the public funding of science had never occurred.

LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on September 25, 2011, 03:54:45 pm
"That video might give FDISK a stroke...."

Not at all...in fact it sort of made me giggle.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on September 25, 2011, 04:03:47 pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCZ3tY-_Ljo&feature=related
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 25, 2011, 07:37:44 pm
FDISK, while you laugh, that is not much of a response to the facts showing that when government spending in research goes up, private spending in research goes down, and that while economic advances are closely linked to spending on research and development, the nations which have increased government spending on science have not seen corresponding economic growth.... in part because for each $1 government increases spending on scientific research private enterprise reduces its spending by $1.20.

And for an illustration of why that is true.... http://jesbeard.com/?p=13
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 27, 2011, 12:16:08 pm
Ya, just forget about all the microwaves that NASA put in everyones homes or.....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2011, 02:02:15 pm
We would have been better off as a nation if we had never had NASA.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 27, 2011, 02:17:44 pm
No, our nation would be better off if it didn't have the charles koch foundation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 27, 2011, 02:20:59 pm
And I'm surprised that good olde charley didn't mention tax rates between the two lists. Seems list B has all the countries with very low or no taxes.

Perfect for a Banana Republic and a koch incorporation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 30, 2011, 07:08:46 am
http://cnsnews.com/blog/grant-m-dahl/fmr-clinton-adviser-very-possible-obama-will-bow-out-presidential-race-now

Fmr. Clinton Adviser: 'Very Possible' Obama Will Bow Out of Presidential Race - For Now

By Grant M. Dahl
September 29, 2011
Subscribe to Grant M. Dahl's posts
   
In an interview with conservative radio icon Sean Hannity, former President Clinton adviser and campaign manager Dick Morris stated that, after speaking with a Democratic strategist, he thinks it is “very possible” that President Obama might acquiesce to requests from the Democratic leadership in Congress and bow out of the 2012 race, leaving the door open for him to return sometime in the future.

“I asked a top Democratic strategist the other day and he thought that it was possible that, in January, Harry Reid comes to Obama and says, ‘Look you cost us control of the House last year, you’re going to cost us control of the Senate this year. For the good of the party you have to step aside’” said Morris.

“And, then, (Obama) pulls a Lyndon Johnson, he says ‘I’m fighting to solve the recession, and problem is because of partisanship and my re-election people reject everything I say because of partisanship, so I’m going to not run for president and focus my full time attention on solving this recession’ and then go out popular,” Morris added.


The strategy proposed here is an interesting one. With his approval ratings at an all time low, Obama is looking at a very high likelihood of a defeat in the 2012 elections and forecasters, using the examples of the 2011 special elections in New York City and Nevada, have forecast a very high probability of losses across the nation for the Democratic Party because of Obama.

A withdrawal by President Obama, with a statement that the reason he’s bowing out is to solve the recession, would likely allow the Democratic Party to recover some of its popularity and allow the president to present himself as rising above the partisan fights in Congress with a higher goal in mind. This would help the Democrats to better portray the Republicans, and especially the Tea Party, as the stubborn, non-compromising party uninterested in truly solving the nation’s problems.

Morris added that he thinks that this strategy could also set up Obama for a presidential run in a later election.

“The twenty second amendment does not preclude non-consecutive terms, he is young, (he could) preserve himself as a possible candidate down the road” said Morris. “We’ve seen how Bill Clinton is much more popular now then he was when he was leaving office, same with Jimmy Carter.”

Intriguing as that possibility is, however, non-consecutive presidential terms have only happened once before in American politics, though they have been attempted by a few former presidents. The only president to successfully serve non-consecutive terms was Democrat Grover Cleveland who won election in 1884, lost in 1888, and won in 1892.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 30, 2011, 07:33:33 am
I don't think Obama likes the duties of being President.  He likes the fame and celebrity but the amount of work involved seems to overwhelm him.  He is at his happiest when he is out campaigning, giving speeches, doing interviews, in other words, doing the things ex-presidents do.  I don't think he'll bow out though, his ego won't allow it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 30, 2011, 07:35:33 am
Yes Otto, all the problems of the country can be laid at the feet of the Koch foundation.  Obama spending our country into oblivion, enacting regulations that are crippling small business and passing another major entitlement when we can't afford the three we have had nothing to do with it.  Damn those Koch brothers
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2011, 07:51:17 pm
Dave, to revisit an earlier discussion we had....

If a state decided to have and "official language," and to require that the language be taught in all schools, that no other language be used in teaching in the schools, that education was mandatory, that mastery of the language be demonstrated before anyone graduated, that there was NO AGE at which a person could drop out without completing the required course of study, that all government business be conducted exclusively in the official language, that police officers only use the official language and arrest anyone unable to respond in the official language.... and that the "official language" be something other than English....

Do you believe the Constitution currently would prevent that, or that the Constitution would allow Congress to do anything to prevent that?  And assuming that the Constitution would allow Congress to do something, how do you practically believe Congress could?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 02, 2011, 11:06:57 pm
Jes - you add things into the equation that I never advocated.

If a state decided to have and "official language," and to require that the language be taught in all schools, that no other language be used in teaching in the schools,

Pretty much what I advocate, although of course, Spanish should be used to teach Spanish, Chinese should be used to teach Chinese, etc.

that education was mandatory,

To the age of 16 only.

that mastery of the language be demonstrated before anyone graduated,

Proficiency in English would be a prerequisite for progressing to any grade.  The school should teach an immigrant to speak and write english before teaching them any other subjects.  I have heard the educators refer to that as English immersion.

that there was NO AGE at which a person could drop out without completing the required course of study,

As I said above, anyone can drop out at age 16.

that all government business be conducted exclusively in the official language,

Agreed.  Except when the official business MUST be conducted in another language, to allow the government to complete it's business, such as using an interpreter in cases of arrest, trial, etc.

that police officers only use the official language and arrest anyone unable to respond in the official language....

Straw man.  I never advocated that.

and that the "official language" be something other than English....

Don't know what you mean by that.

Do you believe the Constitution currently would prevent that, or that the Constitution would allow Congress to do anything to prevent that?  And assuming that the Constitution would allow Congress to do something, how do you practically believe Congress could?

If it doesn't, then amend the Constitution.  We are talking about what SHOULD be done.  Not what is currently politically viable.

If someone comes to live in this country and chooses not to learn English, I have no problem with that.  That is a perfectly valid choice, as long as they are willing to live with the difficulties associated with being unable to interact with many portions of the population in many circumstances.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 03, 2011, 09:28:08 am
I understand that I added things.  But everything that I added is possible, and is the kind of thing which populists in one area or another might support.

As to the mandatory education until only age 16, some states have already changed that.  That age has no particular magic associated with it.

that mastery of the language be demonstrated before anyone graduated,

Proficiency in English would be a prerequisite for progressing to any grade.  The school should teach an immigrant to speak and write english before teaching them any other subjects.  I have heard the educators refer to that as English immersion.

And isn't that the kind of thing that should be determined by the individual school and the parents?  If the nation moves to a voucher system for education, some school will use immersion.  Many will not.  Government should not be making the decision.



that all government business be conducted exclusively in the official language,

Agreed.  Except when the official business MUST be conducted in another language, to allow the government to complete it's business, such as using an interpreter in cases of arrest, trial, etc.

that police officers only use the official language and arrest anyone unable to respond in the official language....

Straw man.  I never advocated that.

And I never said that you did.  I asked you for your REACTION to it.  I did not ask whether it was what you advocated.



and that the "official language" be something other than English....

Don't know what you mean by that.

I mean that in my hypothetical the locals have decided that it would be best to have some language other than English as the "official language" for that state.  (Search as I might thru the Constitution I seen nothing in it giving the federal government the authority to determine and "official language" for the nation, and in the 10th Amendment I see pretty clear language that it could not stop a state from adopting an "official language" for the state.)



Do you believe the Constitution currently would prevent that, or that the Constitution would allow Congress to do anything to prevent that?  And assuming that the Constitution would allow Congress to do something, how do you practically believe Congress could?

If it doesn't, then amend the Constitution.  We are talking about what SHOULD be done.


Dave, we have HAD the discussion you wanted, where you narrowly limited what we were talking about, and limited it to such a degree that I thought the discussion was pretty pointless, and by pointless I mean it did not urge either of us to think.

I am now trying to revive the discussion without the narrow limits you imposed, but I did not ask about what should or shouldn't be done with the Constitution.


If someone comes to live in this country and chooses not to learn English, I have no problem with that.  That is a perfectly valid choice, as long as they are willing to live with the difficulties associated with being unable to interact with many portions of the population in many circumstances.

Again, Dave, the paragraph above is not responsive to my question, nor does it really respond to the hypothetical I offer.  In this nation we also get to chose the individual state in which we live, and in my hypothetical there is a state which has decided to have some language other than English as the "official language."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 03, 2011, 10:51:11 am
Jes - I explained in detail what I wanted to see.  What others want to see is not the point.

I don't think that drivers license tests in the United States should be given in various languages.  If others think they should, that doesn't change my opinion.  I think that that the official language in every state should be english.  If some state decides that their official language will be Spanish, that doesn't change my opinion.  For that matter, we can have a Constitutional amendment that precludes that.

To summarize, I believe all government activities, state and federal, should be conducted in English, other than those that by their very nature MUST be done in another language, such as teaching foreign languages in school, interpreters in court cases or questioning suspects that do not speak English, etc.  Private schools can do anything they want to do, as long as they receive no public funding, either directly or indirectly through government vouchers.  Individuals may speak any language they wish, in public or in private. 
Radio stations may broadcast in any language they wish.

If this doesn't cover any of your hypotheticals, you will have to restate them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 03, 2011, 04:17:08 pm
Dave, I understand your position.  And I believe you understand my hypothetical.

I did not ask you to further explain your position.

I asked you two very narrow questions based on that hypothetical.

So far you have not responded to those questions, and certainly you are free to do that.

But, just in case, your failure is not a result of a deliberate decision, I will repeat them:

Do you believe the Constitution currently would prevent that, or that the Constitution would allow Congress to do anything to prevent that?  And assuming that the Constitution would allow Congress to do something, how do you practically believe Congress could?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 03, 2011, 04:54:38 pm
Congress is seldom constrained by the Constitution.  They give money to schools without constitutional authority.  They run the Social Security system without constitutional authority.  Medicare, and thousands of other programs.

If I were on the Supreme Court, I would vote against these and other actions of Congress, as the Constitution now is written.

So let's have a Constitutional Amendment making English the official language of the United States, under the general perameters I mentioned above.  We could easily hash out the details.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 03, 2011, 08:24:50 pm
I would be much happier if you would just attempt to answer the simple questions I asked.

I sincerely believe it would cause you to realize another problem with your idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 03, 2011, 09:27:02 pm
I thought I had answered it several times, but I will try again.

"Do you believe the Constitution currently would prevent that, or that the Constitution would allow Congress to do anything to prevent that?  And assuming that the Constitution would allow Congress to do something, how do you practically believe Congress could?"

Yes, as I said several times above, the Constitution currently would prevent that.

No, the Constitution would prevent Congress from doing that.

And if the Constitution DID allow it, Congress could pass laws to make it work.

All answers that were given or implied by other answers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 03, 2011, 10:11:05 pm
Congress could pass laws to make it work.

How?

Imagine you are the governor of the state of Buttf*ck.  You have a very large population of Dutch speakers, and they in fact outnumber English speakers.  You also have several major employers from the Netherlands and the prospect of more, if even more of your population spoke Dutch.  (Dutch is an actual language..... isn't it?)

So your legislature passes a law to make Dutch the official language and do as I set out in my hypothetical.  You, holding the beliefs you do, veto the legislation, but the legislature overrides your veto.

Now Congress does..... what exactly?

They pass a federal law saying you can't do that?  Such federal legislation would be rather meaningless, and I am ignoring any Constitutional issue.  Unless the president intended to send in federal troops, to enforce it, or to arrest members of the state legislature when they conducted legislative sessions in Dutch, the federal legislation would be meaningless.

So, again, assuming that the Constitution would allow Congress to do something, how do you practically believe Congress could?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 03, 2011, 10:41:57 pm
It would hardly be meaningless. 

Congress could pass laws invalidating all laws passed using the dutch language, and the federal courts could enforce them just as they enforce laws against race discrimination in housing, sexual discrimination in the work place, etc.  Federal troops have not been used to enforce the above laws, and with substantial success.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 03, 2011, 11:19:44 pm
Congress does not have the power to invalidate all legislation passed by a state.  It doesn't have the power to invalidate ANY state legislation.

Dave, be serious for a moment about what you are saying.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 04, 2011, 07:12:37 pm
It does if we pass a constitutional amendment that allows it.

I am totally serious, but you seem unable to grasp the basic concept.  What I have said from the beginning is that if the constitution does not allow an official language under the perameters I mentioned, then we should pass a constitutional amendment to give it that power.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that under that condition, talking about what the constitution says NOW is unimportant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 04, 2011, 07:52:25 pm
No, Dave, passing a constitutional amendment "that allows it," would not make it operable.

Remember your history about the Supreme Court decision in roughly 1832 in which the Court agreed with the Cherokee that their treaty was valid and bound the federal government to allowing the Cherokee to remain in GA and TN and AL?  Jackson's response illustrates my point -- "Chief Justice Marshall has rendered his opinion, now let us see him enforce it."

There is no way the federal government could stop a state government from going ahead with the hypothetical I have set out, short of sending in federal troops and essentially taking over the government.

Somehow I suspect that would be far more harmful to the country than whatever benefit might be derived from having English the "official national language".... and I suspect that you also see that, but can't bring yourself to admit it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 04, 2011, 08:54:34 pm
No, Jes, you are being foolish.  Federal Government and the Supreme Court have forced a great many more difficult policies on the states.  Citizenship to blacks was forced upon the southern states.  Integration was forced upon the southern states.  Gay marriage is in the process of being forced upon the states, as is Obamacare.  Making English the "official language" of the country would be quite easy to enforce, even in those very few states that didn't want it.

President Jackson was the last President in the past 190 years that defied the Supreme Court and managed to make it stick, and no state has ever defied the Supreme Court successfully since the Civil War.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 04, 2011, 09:32:56 pm
Citizenship for blacks and school integration were accomplished with federal troops.... or have you forgotten.

Gay marriage is NOT in the process of being forced on the states, nor will Obamacare.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 04, 2011, 11:09:45 pm
No problem.  If troops are what it takes, then use troops.

By the way, the vast majority of schools integrated without the use of troops.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 05, 2011, 02:27:28 am
Yes.... because there was the threat of troops.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 05, 2011, 01:52:55 pm
That is the same reason that people pay taxes, refrain from inside trading and do not commit bigamy on military bases.  Nothing wrong with the threat of troops to get people to obey the law.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 08, 2011, 09:11:24 am
(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/309636_10150850722430725_780005724_21289133_1236814516_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on October 10, 2011, 03:49:43 pm
What "ill" does an official language cure?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 10, 2011, 04:27:47 pm
It helps immigrants to melt into American society and become "americans" rather than to continue to think of themselves and be thought of as tribal unit within the country.  I would rather not have the problems that Canada has had in the past and many countries in the European Union are having right now, as well as a great many countries throughout the world that have permanent minorities within their borders.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on October 10, 2011, 04:28:20 pm
All the extra copies that have to be made in a second language?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on October 10, 2011, 06:57:20 pm
"It helps immigrants to melt into American society and become "americans" rather than to continue to think of themselves and be thought of as tribal unit within the country."

"American society".  I'll have to Google that for a definition.   

I'm all for helping legal immigrants.  There is no doubt in my mind that if they want to succeed in this country they or their children will need to learn English. But what frightens me are not hordes of non-English speaking citizens but the people who will be standing in line to enforce their interpretation of "American Society". 

I live in an officially bilingual State.  Many of our citizens ancestor's were speaking Spanish in "America" centuries before there were "americans". English is the "minority language" of my own household. 

Besides, by the middle of this century Spanish will be THE second language of the US, official or otherwise. Embrace our differences.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 10, 2011, 07:17:38 pm
I would rather not have the problems that Canada has had in the past and many countries in the European Union are having right now, as well as a great many countries throughout the world that have permanent minorities within their borders.

This nation began its history with a revolution from England, a nation with whom we had a common language.

In 1861 we engaged in a civil war killing more than 600,000 people a time when the national population was not yet 32 million.  And virtually everyone in the U.S. at the time spoke English.

And roughly 100 later we experienced race riots which were of a magnitude far greater than any conflict I am aware of in Canadian history.

And all of this was with virtually all of us speaking English.

Switzerland, on the other hand, has FOUR different official languages.... and has one of the most peaceful national histories found anywhere over the last 700 years.

Forgive me if I am not persuaded that an official language has the same importance you seem to give it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 10, 2011, 07:26:41 pm
I never tried to persuade you.  I merely gave my opinion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on October 10, 2011, 07:37:24 pm
Sometimes the way those two bicker back and forth you would swear they ar married!   Lol
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 11, 2011, 10:47:15 pm
I am amazed by how bad Rick Perry is in the debates. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 11, 2011, 10:50:41 pm
He did okay in the first one and it's been downhill fast since then, hasn't it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 11, 2011, 11:18:46 pm
That is a shame, since debating skill is the most important one for a President to have.  After all, Obama did well in the debates.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 11, 2011, 11:23:13 pm
Not really commenting on his ability to run the country.  Just saying he is a very poor debater and doesn't seem to be getting any better.  I know you like him Dave but you need to look into the Tech fund in TX and the sweetheart deals he gave to his top donors.  To me that is a disqualifier.   Herman Cain doesn't have that baggage and appears to be a solid conservative.  I would think he would be more attractive to many former Perry supporters. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2011, 11:49:16 pm
Dave, an ability to explain and defend a position or an idea, to marshal facts and present arguments in a persuasive manner, is important for a president.

And Perry has pretty much shown he is utterly incapable of doing that.

Before the first debate, I might have put him 3rd on my personal list of favorites among the declared Republican candidates.

He now ranks next to last, and considering how low I still regard Santorum, falling below him is pretty bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2011, 11:56:41 pm
And here, in her last sentence or two, Michelle Bachman illustrates why no matter how much I dislike Santorum.... he will not be the Republican I like least so long as she is still a candidate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/bachmann_the_devil_is_in_the_details_of_cains_9-9-9_plan.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 12, 2011, 10:31:15 am
Not really commenting on his ability to run the country.  Just saying he is a very poor debater and doesn't seem to be getting any better.  I know you like him Dave but you need to look into the Tech fund in TX and the sweetheart deals he gave to his top donors.  To me that is a disqualifier.   Herman Cain doesn't have that baggage and appears to be a solid conservative.  I would think he would be more attractive to many former Perry supporters. 

I would much prefer Cain over Perry, if I could appoint him.  But I don't think that he can be elected.

There are a lot of things I dislike about Perry.  None of what you mention is as bad, in my opinion, as his view on illegal immigration.  But I find him much more acceptable than Romney, and the others don't have much of a chance, in my opinion, in the presidential race.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 12, 2011, 10:34:46 am
Anyone have any recent polls how each candidate stacks up against Obama?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 12, 2011, 10:48:30 am
Anyone have any recent polls how each candidate stacks up against Obama?

I believe the technical term is "going to get stomped like a narc at a biker rally".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 12, 2011, 11:00:59 am
Jeff, which one do you see getting stomped?

If you think it is going to be the Republican, I would like to have a piece of that action.

And, Dave, if you look at the polling, any of the Republicans would likely beat Obama.

As to Perry's "view on illegal immigration" (and keep in mind that I do NOT like Perry), other than his position on allowing all state residents in-state tuition, regardless their immigration status (something allowed in most states, something like 10 thru express statute or other written policy statements and most of the others thru their silence on the issue), what complaint is it you have about his "view on illegal immigration"?

Have I missed him somewhere saying that he wanted more of it?

He has supported securing the border, and has taken serious steps as governor to do so.  He supports using a border fence IN THOSE AREAS WHERE IT WOULD HELP, but believes that a fence along the entire border would not be cost effective.

Does he use state funds to pay tour buses to go down to Mexico city and bring them up illegally by the busload or something?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 12, 2011, 01:08:23 pm
Jes - the recent polling does not reflect the next 12 months misinformation with which the mainstream media will bombard the typical American voter.

Watch how they make heroes out of the current lunatic "Occupy Wall Street" protesters.  It is the first step in the "blame capitalism" campaign that is going to do a lot towards changing the future polls.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 12, 2011, 02:21:19 pm
I don't know much about the protests, but you can appreciate the benefits of capitalism while protesting the greed, ethical breeches, and mismanagement that have plagued our banking system and other key elements of our economy in recent years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 12, 2011, 02:44:18 pm
Jes - the recent polling does not reflect the next 12 months misinformation with which the mainstream media will bombard the typical American voter.

Watch how they make heroes out of the current lunatic "Occupy Wall Street" protesters.  It is the first step in the "blame capitalism" campaign that is going to do a lot towards changing the future polls.

Dave, the "mainstream media" is becoming marginalized almost to the point of irrelevance.  And effort at the "bombardment" you fear will only further accomplish that.

One of the biggest problems of mainstream news is its deliberate effort to re-affirm whatever most of the viewers of a station or network already believe.  This plays hand in hand with the tendency of viewers to ignore things which are in conflict with what they already believe and to not only seek out but to attach inordinate weight to the information which confirms existing belief (confirmation bias), and which causes them to tune out conflicting information so that it registers as little more than background noise.

As the economy is in the crapper, voters come to feel that whoever they view as being in power is bad, undesirable, perhaps even stupid or corrupt, and they feel this at a gut level on a variety of fronts.

That is the problem Obama is suffering from, and as reports about Solyndra and other crony capitalism come out, it will tend to confirm the negative feelings they now have about him.... and the news media will tend to seek out and report those stories.  The same is true with Eric Holder and Fast and Furious.

At this point, unless the news media can improve the job picture and get more money to appear in the bank accounts of voters, there is little it can do to help Obama, and the natural inclination of the media will be instead to point out shortcomings.

True enough MSNBC will continue playing the role of Obama defender, but MSNBC is virtually irrelevant, not just because of its small audience, but because the only people who watch the network still believe Obama walks on water and MSNBC reports about how great he is will not cause the votes of the network's viewers to be counted twice.

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 12, 2011, 02:49:50 pm
I don't know much about the protests, but you can appreciate the benefits of capitalism while protesting the greed, ethical breeches, and mismanagement that have plagued our banking system and other key elements of our economy in recent years.

Play greed, ethical breeches and mismanagement are constants in human society.  The free market is self-correcting as a means of dealing with each of them.  The problem is not that there is any more of any of them in recent years than in decades or centuries past.  The problem is that continued government jiggering of the free market system knocked it seriously out of whack.

Virtually every effort by government to tinker with the system will have side effects, just like medications which might be prescribed to help an ill patient.  And, just like with a living patient, those side effects are not always foreseen.  Do enough tinkering and it is just like the combined side effect resulting from the interaction of several medications.

Instead of adding more tinkering and intervention in the marketplace, we need to allow the patient to function prescription free for a while.... just to see how it goes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 12, 2011, 03:15:59 pm
Those doing the protesting (and a significant portion of the population) think that free enterprise (and greed) is a bad thing.  The media (not merely the news, but Hollywood, sitcoms, Jon Stewart, etc. have done a good job of painting capitalism and it's underlying self interest, to be a bad thing.  I think they will have a much easier time of positioning the Banks and the banking system as the bad guys, especially among the uneducated, and even among the well educated.

I think that Obama is beatable, but I do NOT think it will be the a walkaway victory, no matter who is nominated, and there are several among the current candidates, Bachmann, Huntsman, Paul, and perhaps Cain that are certainly beatable head to head against Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 12, 2011, 03:41:42 pm
Obama is down four runs going to the seventh.  A comeback is unlikely but not out of the question.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 12, 2011, 04:39:04 pm
Obama is down four runs going to the seventh.  A comeback is unlikely but not out of the question.

Your analysis neglects to consider that the Republicans' closer is Carlos Marmol.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 12, 2011, 05:02:29 pm
I think that Obama is beatable, but I do NOT think it will be the a walkaway victory, no matter who is nominated, and there are several among the current candidates, Bachmann, Huntsman, Paul, and perhaps Cain that are certainly beatable head to head against Obama.

Huntsman, Paul and Cain would all win easily.

Anyone who has not yet had a funeral with an open casket would beat Obama next year.

He is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 12, 2011, 08:40:02 pm
I hope you are right.  But I doubt that it will be that easy.  The american people are extremely unhappy, but a great many vote on emotion or upon what the media (all media, including non-news media) tells them to do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 23, 2011, 11:13:12 am
Cain really hurt himself when he backed down on the abortion stance he originally took.  I have been involved in the anti-abortion (I hate the term pro-life) movement for 30 years, and 90% of the people in it that I have met believe that abortions should be allowed in the case of ****, and when the LIFE (not HEALTH) of the mother is at stake.  For the most part, it is only the "leaders", chosen mostly by the media. who believe that abortion should not be allowed in ANY situations.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2011, 11:21:02 am
Cain doesn't really know what he is doing, or what he is saying, and half the time has not thought very deeply about what he is saying or his positions, even on important issues.  He will not be a factor when everything shakes out.  The real question is where will the folks who currently say they are supporting Cain go when they know a bit more about him?

Will they get over their reservations about Romney?  While they might, Romney has been around quite a while now and he can't seem to get his sled any further up the hill.  There appears to be a strong resistance to him, whether because he is a Mormon, or because he is perceived as untrustworthy on issues, or what it is.  The problem is there and is real.

Will they go to Gingrich?  Newt has looked good in each of the debates and has been slowly climbing a bit.

Will they go back to Perry?  Many of those now supporting Cain used to support Perry.... and I suspect that once they have turned from Perry, they will not be going back.

Will they go to Paul?  That is my hope, and there are scenarios under which it might happen.  Paul will also benefit from open primaries allowing anti-war independents and liberals to vote for him, as well as allowing liberal potheads who like legalization to vote for him.

Cain, however, is not looking good lately.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 23, 2011, 11:28:22 am
I believe that most of the pro-life people will go back to Perry.  He is improving as a debater, and most one-issue voters don't much care about debates anyway.  As you say, Romney is the best known of the candidates, and those that are not in favor of him are so because they KNOW him, not because they DON'T know him.

Romney still has a good chance of winning the nomination, because he is the best known candidate, and because most of the media, both liberal and conservative, favor him over the other Republican candidates.  He is the least likely Republican to try to change the way things are done in Washington, if elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 23, 2011, 11:33:12 am
Probably the most damaging statement by Cain was that he would be willing to swap every terrorist captive in Guantanimo for one single american captive.  I am much more concerned about a potential president's likely policies than I am about how good a debater he is.  But I can't think of a policy that is dumber than that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 23, 2011, 12:56:26 pm
While in MA all anyone can think of his the MassCare plan.  They neglect to mention him cutting 350 departments, eliminating departments, turning a budget deficit into a surplus all without raising taxes.  The MA legislature was about to enact Universal Care which they could do because they the numbers to override any veto.  Instead he put in place a market based plan that was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.  He vetoed Cap N Trade, he said no to a dream act, he fought against the gay marriage crowd and basically governed as a conservative in a very Blue state.  I wish people would look deeper into his record than what the punditry and press does.  Even his change in abortion was a natural evolution that made sense but all people care about is labeling him a flip flopper.  Isn't the goal of the anti abortion movement to gain converts?  Shouldn't that conversion be celebrated?   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 23, 2011, 01:01:18 pm
I think that is the point, Robb.  A lot of people are sick and tired of politicians that compromise in order to "limit the damage".

With all the talk about how conservative the Republicans are in congress, they have not cut spending ONE CENT.  Spending this year will be higher than it was last year.  It will merely not be as high as the Democrats would have liked.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2011, 01:29:33 pm
I believe that most of the pro-life people will go back to Perry.  He is improving as a debater, and most one-issue voters don't much care about debates anyway.

Improving as a debater?

Did you watch the debate last week?  I haven't seen any polls since then, but I am confident he will take another hit from it.  He was terrible, not as a debater, but as a human being.  He was rude, interrupting others, making baseless allegations, looked a bit like a thug who wanted to punch someone, and calling names.  Not a good performance.

The pro-life crowd also has a considerable overlap with those very interested in illegal immigration, and Perry has lost them.  He also has upset many of the pro-life folks as a result of the Gaurdisil issue.

Paul, on the other hand, has a longterm strong pro-life record, without similar problems likely to upset that voting block.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 23, 2011, 03:23:35 pm
Perry has lost the anti-illegal immigration group, but if it is a choice between he and Romney, he will get them back.

Paul is too far out of the mainstream to attract many conservative voters.  He is a lot like Romney in that his supporters will not leave him, but he will not attract many new voters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2011, 04:13:38 pm
Paul is still largely unknown to most voters.  Romney is known, and has not been embraced.

Paul's position has been remarkably consistent on pretty much of everything for 30 years, and the Republican party is moving toward him on many, many issues.  On what issues do you consider his policy positions "too far out of the mainstream" for "many conservative voters"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 23, 2011, 04:19:12 pm
Mostly foreign affairs.  He is viewed as an isolationist, and that is no longer a position of mainstream conservatism.  He is also even more liberal (libertarian) on the position of immigration.  And I don't know many people that take a return to the gold standard seriously.

By the way, Perry did a much better job in this week's debate.  But the larger point is that no one really takes any candidates seriously, other than Romney and Perry, and in the long run, the decision is likely to be between the two of them.  They are the only ones with the money to run a long campaign.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2011, 04:31:57 pm
Money will flow to those who attract voters.  Paul and Cain both are in much better financial shape than McCain was at this time 4 years ago.

As to Petty doing better in the most recent debate, you and I must have watched different debates.  I have not seen any polling results since the last debate, but I suspect Perry fell further.  As I wrote before, he was rude, interrupting others, making baseless allegations, looked a bit like a thug who wanted to punch someone, and calling names.  Not a good performance.

You are right that Paul is viewed as something of an isolationist, and I suspect that voters are increasingly coming to realize that we have neither the legal authority, the financial capacity, the political will, or moral authority for further military adventurism around the world, and that we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.  We need to bring troops home, and I suspect most people (though not leading Republican office-holders) see that.  As to being liberal on immigration.... how so?  The guy wants to close the borders, and is much clearer on the issue than most of the others.  And while most people may not take a return to the gold standard seriously, it also is not a position which is likely to cause many people not to vote for him (additionally, he is far, far less concerned with the "gold standard" than he is simply returning to sound currency and ending the fed's practice of simply running the printing presses to create new money, and that is an issue a lot of folks agree with him on.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 23, 2011, 04:39:21 pm
Who would be willing to be Paul's running mate?  I'm not sure any of the current others.  It would probably be someone we never heard of.  Who would take Paul as VP?  Nobody.  I think that's telling as to his appeal.

Don't misunderstand.  I like Paul.  I just think he's just off enough to win the big one.  I'd probably vote for him, but I don't know many other of my fellow Republicans who would be too enthusiastic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2011, 06:01:07 pm
Any of the Republican declared candidates, including Buddy Roemer of Louisianna, would beat Obama.

Republicans might not be wildly enthusiastic about a candidate, but an enthusiastic vote does not get counted any more than an unenthusiastic vote.  Obama is so unpopular, whoever runs against him wins.

As to Paul's running mate, I would be shocked if any of the folks taking part in the debates would turn down the VP spot (which is not to say he would offer it to any of them, but just that they would accept it).

Paul would be one of the oldest, if not THE oldest presidents elected, and would be unlikely to pursue a 2nd term, meaning a VP under him would have a good shot of becoming the 2016 nominee... meaning anyone wanting to be president would be eager to be his VP.  No matter what they might say about his ideas in debate on on the campaign trail, if he offers the spot (and I doubt that he would), they would suddenly start talking about how wonderful he was.  Remember George Bush I, and Voodo economics?  Once Reagan swallowed hard and proposed Bush as his running mate, Bush warmed up to the idea, AND to "Voodo economics," very quickly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2011, 10:19:23 pm
Hard to excuse murdering someone in custody or under control and offering no resistance, whether Gaddafi or bin Laden. At least this murderer was acting in the excitement of the moment, and without weeks of planning and dozens of advisers.



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4138000,00.html

Libyan rebel: I killed Gaddafi
www.ynetnews.com
News: Man confesses on camera to shooting Libyan leader twice in head and chest
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 23, 2011, 10:59:24 pm
Perry did at least look alive but trying to pin hiring illegals on Romney because his lawn company had hired a few is so weak it is funny.  Do you check in the kitchen when you eat out?  If not then according to Rick Perry you are hiring illegals.  If that is the best he can do against Obama then the country is doomed.  Do you seriously look at Perry and say, yea, I want that guy debating Obama?  To me that would be like watching this year's Cubs team vs the 27 Yankees.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 24, 2011, 07:44:06 am
It doesn't really matter.  Any of the Repub candidates would be better than Obama and any of them would beat Obama in the election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 24, 2011, 01:29:01 pm
I don't think it is that cut and dry.  If they manage to blame the economy on the evil bankers, rather than the administration, Obama can still win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 24, 2011, 02:09:35 pm
I'm allergic to purple.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 24, 2011, 02:47:47 pm
I knew you were being sarcastic, but there are a lot of people out there that consider what you said to be true.  Certainly, the odds are against Obama right now, but the campaign has not really gotten into gear yet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 24, 2011, 03:10:16 pm
I knew you were being sarcastic, but there are a lot of people out there that consider what you said to be true.  Certainly, the odds are against Obama right now, but the campaign has not really gotten into gear yet.

With enough effort you can scrape the burn off of toast.... but that is what Obama is.  Toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 24, 2011, 05:09:41 pm
There were some on this board that were saying, one year before the last election, that Obama didn't have a chance of being elected.  Weren't you one of them?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on October 24, 2011, 05:14:18 pm
There is one group of voters that will vote overwhelmingly for Obahma.  People of color will vote over 95% for him but for no other reason than his skin color.   Just a fact.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 24, 2011, 05:37:08 pm
Since blacks in recent elections have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate by 90-10 margins or so, I don't think it's accurate to say that their support for Obama is predominantly related to race.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 24, 2011, 06:51:06 pm
There were some on this board that were saying, one year before the last election, that Obama didn't have a chance of being elected.  Weren't you one of them?

Dave, I honestly don't recall.  I know that by about October 10th, when the sh*t hit the fan on the economy I became convinced that he likely WOULD win.  I might have earlier thought he would not, but I don't recall that.  Not disputing whether I ever thought or wrote that, but just saying I don't remember, though I am certain I was not of that opinion or expressing that opinion in the final weeks of the race.  That race was decided primarily based on the economy, which is the issue likely to also decide this one, and there is virtually no prospect the jobs picture will be appreciably better a year from now, while there is considerable chance it will be a good deal worse.

It is the economy which will do Obama in.  Some voters will voice other reasons, but they will largely be excuses or rationalizations for decisions which are actually based on the economy.  For instance Solyndra or Fast and Furious or immigration or anything else could be considered an important issue next summer, while if the economy were doing well very few people would pay any attention.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 24, 2011, 06:55:15 pm
Since blacks in recent elections have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate by 90-10 margins or so, I don't think it's accurate to say that their support for Obama is predominantly related to race.

In black precincts in Chattanooga, it often runs as high as 99% Democratic, and that was before anyone had ever heard of Obama.  Obama increased black turnout, but there were not too many black votes out there which would not have gone Democratic in November.  Tribal voting helping in the primary, but not really in the general.  And if "people of color" includes Hispanics, Obama did not come close to even 90% of the Hispanic vote.   Just a fact.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 24, 2011, 07:11:29 pm
I agree that if Obama loses, it will be because of the economy.  But the strategy he is starting to use is quite simple. 

1. People are angry because of the economy. 

2. Deflect that anger against the evil banking system.

3. Identify the Republicans with the evil banking system.

It is a long shot, but with the unified help of the media, (not merely the news media), it could work.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 24, 2011, 07:13:09 pm
Four more years of Obama is a done deal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 24, 2011, 07:24:39 pm
Not a done deal, but certainly a possibility.  Fortunately, it will take a miracle for the Democrats to retain the Senate or regain the house.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 24, 2011, 09:27:32 pm
I think BEERFAN is still in denial that Obama won.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 30, 2011, 05:49:32 pm
http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-lies-falsely-claims-over-past-three-decades-middle-class-has-lost

The truth sounds so..... harsh.  But who would really be surprised by learning that Obama lied?


Obama Lies: Falsely Claims ‘Over Past Three Decades, Middle Class Has Lost Ground’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 29, 2011
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts
   
Barack Obama
President Barack Obama delivering his weekly address, released by the White House on Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011.
In his videotaped weekly address released by the White House Saturday, President Barack Obama made a demonstrably false statement about what has happened to the incomes of middle-class Americans over the past three decades.
Anyone capable of doing a Google search can see for themselves how the president lied.
On Tuesday, Oct. 25, the Congressional Budget Office released a report entitled, “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.”
The very first sentence of this report revealed a fact that may run counter the impression Americans get from the establishment media about what happened to the average American’s income in the approximately three decades that preceded the year that Obama was elected president.
It said that after deducting federal taxes, accounting for government transfer payments (redistributions of wealth) and adjusting for inflation, the income of the average American household had grown significantly in the 28 years from 1979 to 2007.
“From 1979 to 2007,” the report said, “average household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes, grew by 65 percent.”
Now, someone given to a class-war interpretation of American society might suspect that this number showing that the inflation-adjusted, after-tax income of the average household increased by 65 percent from 1979 to 2007 must cloak a darker reality: i.e. that middle-class Americans in fact saw their after-tax, inflation-adjusted incomes go down, while the wealthiest Americans saw their’s massively increase, thus yielding a higher overall average even as the average middle-class income declined.
But that was not the case, according to CBO.
It is true that the inflation-adjusted, after-tax household income of the wealthiest Americans did massively increase between 1979 and 2007. In fact, said CBO, for the wealthiest 1 percent of households it went up a remarkable 275 percent.
“For the wealthiest 1 percent with the highest income,” the report said, “average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007.”
But this incredible growth in the income of the wealthiest Americans did not cloak a decline in the real after-tax income of middle-class households—far from it.
“For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale (21st through 80th percentiles),” said CBO, “the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40 percent.”
That means that a family that would have been earning the equivalent of about $50,000 per year in constant dollars in 1997 would be making the equivalent of $70,000 in 2007.
Those who have not made it into the top 1 percent, but who have made it to the upper middle class, also did extraordinarily well in the period from 1979 to 2007, according to the CBO report. “For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income (those in the 81st through 99th percentiles), average real after-tax income grew by 65 percent over that period,” said CBO.
Surely, then, if the top 1 percent, and top 20 percent, and the middle 60 percent all saw their real after-tax household incomes rise in the years from 1997 to 2007, then the income of the poor must have declined? Right?
Not so, said the CBO report.
"For the 20 percent with the lowest income,” said CBO, “average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1997.”
But this is not what Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday.
“This week, a new economic report confirmed what most Americans already believe to be true: over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier,” said Obama.
This is false. As noted, according to the CBO report released Tuesday, both the middle class and the wealthiest Americans became wealthier in the roughly three decades from 1979 to 2007, with both groups seeing their inflation-adjusted after-tax income go up.
“In fact,” said Obama, “the average income for the top one percent of Americans has risen almost seven times faster than the income of the average middle class family.”
This is true, but it contradicts Obama’s first sentence and appears to prove that—even though he does not cite it by name—that Obama was using the CBO report as his source. The report said the average, inflation-adjusted after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households went up 275 percent, or about 6.9 times as much as the 40 percent increase in the average, inflation-adjusted after-tax income of the middle 60 percent of households.
“And this has happened during a period where the cost of everything from health care to college has skyrocketed,” Obama said.
This is misleading. The increases in income that the CBO documented among the wealthiest, the middle class and the poorest American households were in inflation-adjusted dollars—meaning that each type of household saw its income rise over and above the level of inflation between 1979 and 2007.
Leaving aside Obama’s false claim that the “middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier,” the president’s evident dismay that Americans did not see their income change at a uniform rate across all income levels raises a compelling question: Would he feel better about America if inflation-adjusted after-tax income at all levels had risen at a uniform 18 percent—the level of increase the poorest 20 percent of households saw between 1979 and 2007? Would he feel better had income at all levels risen by only 10 percent? What if income at all levels had remained static with a 0-percent average, after-tax, inflation-adjusted rate of growth in the years from 1979 to 2007?
What if they had all declined by a uniform 10 percent?
Would that have better fulfilled President Obama’s vision for an America where no one’s income grows faster than anyone else’s?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 01, 2011, 01:14:35 pm
I would vote for Paul over the Empty Suit.

I would rather the GOP nominee tabbed Paul to be the Secretary of the Treasury.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2011, 12:29:27 pm
Rick Perry is now officially toast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-2qfDNc

That was from Friday.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 03, 2011, 08:36:19 am
Just watching the news on the Occupy Oakland riots, what's the point in occupying Oakland in the first place?  Oakland isn't exactly the hotbed of corporate America and 1%'ers in this country. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 03, 2011, 10:23:48 am
Facebook is a tool... for tools that like to be part of something insignificant
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 03, 2011, 12:24:15 pm
I liked Herman Cain.  It sucks watching him implode like this.  Now the story is he slept with one of the two who accused him. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 03, 2011, 12:44:45 pm
I pretty much lost all interest in Cain when he sided with those idiots in Murfreesboro who are trying to stop a mosque from getting built there.  I haven't understood his recent rise in the polls at all, and with the sexual harrassment stuff and that weird smoking ad that have come out lately, I'm really not understanding it.
 
I'm not even that big of a fan of Romney, but good grief how can the Republicans nominate anyone else besides him?  Everyone else in the field might be a Rush Limbaugh approved conservative or close enough, but they're just terrible candidates.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 03, 2011, 01:02:28 pm
I suppose we have to decide between a terrible candidate and a terrible president.  One of the major problems we have had in the past 20 years is that we keep running a Republican that act like Democrat lite.

It is interesting that since the revelation of the sexual harassment suit, Cain has gone up in the polls.

Maybe he is looking past the nomination process and trying to position himself in the general election.  He is going after the pro-Clinton vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 03, 2011, 01:41:48 pm
I don't think many polls have come out since this mess and certainly none since the story came out he took one of the women to his hotel room for the night. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 03, 2011, 02:37:43 pm
There was one conducted yesterday that showed him leading Romney by 4 points, 28 to 24.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 03, 2011, 04:13:05 pm
Robb, do you have a link to the story you have mentioned?  And, while I have never been a fan of Cain, can you explain why I should give a damn if he slept with someone other than his wife more than ten years ago?

I pretty much lost all interest in Cain when he sided with those idiots in Murfreesboro who are trying to stop a mosque from getting built there.  I haven't understood his recent rise in the polls at all, and with the sexual harrassment stuff and that weird smoking ad that have come out lately, I'm really not understanding it.
 
I'm not even that big of a fan of Romney, but good grief how can the Republicans nominate anyone else besides him?  Everyone else in the field might be a Rush Limbaugh approved conservative or close enough, but they're just terrible candidates.

I think a lot of people have not come to grips with the extent to which the Republican base is simply vehemently anti-Washington, anti-incumbent, anti-government right now.  Cain is the most outside of Washington and outside of government of any of the candidates, and he is also the anti-Romney flavor du jure. 

First it was Trump, then Bachmann, then Perry, now Cain.  The polling for other folks has changed little, indicating that much of the fluctuation is from a large group of Republican voters who simply do not like Romney and hope to find someone to support other than him.  I suspect that after Cain (who I believe will fade very soon, not because of the latest news but simply because he does not seem to handle such things well) that support will move to Gingrich, who may have once been in Washington, but has been out of it for a while.

Bachmann just irritates the sh*t out of me.

Minutes ago she was on Fox once again spewing her standard litany of supposed credentials, and she actually said she had been working in the "private economy" for 50 years.

Yup.  She said 50 years.

Now the woman is 55 years old, so I suppose her parents might have had her out running a lemonade stand at age 5.... but she has also been in Congress since 2007, and she worked as an IRS attorney for the first five years after she finished law school, after high school she went to Israel to spent time in a kibbutz (which  operate as true communes), and at every turn her "private business" experience has had her taking money directly from government.  20+ foster children, all girls with eating disorders, meaning she and hubby got extra money for each day the girls were there since they had to have a "therauputic setting" to treat the eating disorders;  her "family farm" took  $260,000 in federal crop and disaster subsidies between 1995 and 2008; the psychological clinic she and he hubby opened got nearly $30,000 from Minnesota government agencies between 2006 and 2010 in addition to at least $137,000 in federal payments and $24,000 in government grants for counselor training.  She also served in the Minnesota state legislature for 7 years.

And if the hypocrisy were not enough....  Bachmann worked as a research assistant for one of her law professors, John Eidsmoe, for a 1987 book call "Christianity and the Constitution," which argues that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and should become one again... And Bachmann has nothing but praise for the prof, despite his nuttiness, presumably because she shares it, and would like to see the country as a Christian theocracy....  I might actually vote for Obama over her.....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on November 03, 2011, 05:16:56 pm
My guess is that the 50 years of her experience is added up experience.... that is, 5 years doing this and 5 years doing that, all concurrently within the same five years, e.g., attorney and foster parent between 1995 and 2000.  Seems to be a new trend to do that, but it sounds incredibly stupid and certainly isn't going to wow anyone.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on November 03, 2011, 05:23:06 pm
No, the problem with the Republicans is that they allow the Democrats to chose the candidate that ultimately runs, thus our run of Bob Dole, George Bush, and John McCain, only they messed up with Bush because he won.  The media feeds into the divide and causes the perpetual shift to nominate the "one who has a chance to beat the Democrat", which is never a candidate that can do that (except for their miscalculation on Bush). Republicans allow the issue of abortion to split the party rather than unite it as it does for the Democrats.

Just tiring.  Time to cancel cable again.

I suppose we have to decide between a terrible candidate and a terrible president.  One of the major problems we have had in the past 20 years is that we keep running a Republican that act like Democrat lite.

It is interesting that since the revelation of the sexual harassment suit, Cain has gone up in the polls.

Maybe he is looking past the nomination process and trying to position himself in the general election.  He is going after the pro-Clinton vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 03, 2011, 05:41:38 pm
I was trying to remember exactly what Cain said about the mosque in Murfreesboro, so I went to look it up.  His views on it were even more ridiculous than I remembered, and he goes on to explain why he'd have reservations about having a Muslim in his cabinet.  I honestly think it's scary a guy with views like this has been doing so well in Republican polling.

Basically he thinks listening to "the source closest to the problem" of building the mosque is enough to ignore a people's right to freedom of religion.  Well 50-60 years ago you could probably find another loud enough group of rednecks who were dealing with "the problem" of black people and didn't think they were entitled to constitutional civil rights either.  That line of thinking is just downright scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZGwLwqsgEs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZGwLwqsgEs)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 03, 2011, 05:54:06 pm
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/03/cain-accusers-settlements-charges/  This is a link with a synopsis of the story Jes.  There are others like it all over the net.  Like I said in my post,  if this turns out to be true Cain is done.  Why should we care?  Because he made a commitment of fidelity to his wife when he married her and he broke that trust.  If it is true he has lied about it since then and lied to the public about it.  That might not mean anything to you but to a large portion of conservative voters that will be a non-starter.  Right now they are allegations.  He better pray that lady is not allowed or is unwilling to talk.  If she does and she is at all creditable then he is done. 

As far as the polls go.  The polls usually don't indicate right away the impact of a scandal. You have to watch the trends.  Perry didn't lose his support immediately after his horrific debate performance in FL.  It took a week or two to show his nosedive.  We'll see I guess.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 03, 2011, 05:56:21 pm
I honestly think it's scary a guy with views like this has been doing so well in Republican polling.

It is, but several others would probably take the same position, even if they would not word it so inartfully.  Specifically: Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 08, 2011, 02:56:42 pm
Speaking of Santorum, he's picked up the endorsement of Rep. Steve King's former chief aide, Chuck Laudner.

Social conservatives are starting to coalesce around his candidacy, which is what we hoped would happen after they had the opportunity to see the others.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/iowa-quiet-surge-long-shot-santorum
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2011, 03:06:54 pm
Speaking of Santorum, he's picked up the endorsement of Rep. Steve King's former chief aide, Chuck Laudner.

Social conservatives are starting to coalesce around his candidacy, which is what we hoped would happen after they had the opportunity to see the others.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/iowa-quiet-surge-long-shot-santorum

Perhaps I missed it, but York bases his keen insight on..... what, exactly?

I didn't notice York referencing any polling results, or even quoting any insiders in Iowa.  Seems more like wishful thinking than incisive reporting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2011, 03:08:52 pm
The garbage is now surfacing on Cain.....  This "reporting" almost reads as if it could come from the onion.  THIS is supposed to be worthy of reporting?


http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/fifth-woman-raises-questions-about-cains-behavior

A former employee of the United States Agency for International Development says Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain asked her to help arrange a dinner date for him with a female audience member following a speech he delivered nine years ago.

Donna Donella, 40, of Arlington, said the USAID paid Cain to deliver a speech to businessmen and women in Egypt in 2002, during which an Egyptian businesswoman in her 30s asked Cain a question.

"And after the seminar was over," Donella told The Washington Examiner, "Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, 'Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?'"

Donella, who no longer works for USAID, said they were suspicious of Cain's motives and declined to set up the date. Cain responded, "Then you and I can have dinner." That's when two female colleagues intervened and suggested they all go to dinner together, Donella said.

Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.

The next time the women heard from Cain was Christmas, when he sent them his gospel CD.

Donella said she felt it was important to describe her encounter with Cain after hearing more serious allegations of sexual harassment brought by other women.

"I couldn't swear that he had some untoward intentions, but we all thought his tone was suspect and we didn't feel comfortable putting him in touch with that woman," Donella recalled.

"I think [Cain] should not be a serious candidate for the presidential nomination because of what I've seen," said Donella, an independent who said she voted for President Obama in 2008 and probably will again next year. "He's not a person I would want running the country."

Cain's campaign did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Examiner.

sferrechio@washingtonexaminer.com
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2011, 03:08:59 pm
What does ANY politician base his insight on?  I hope it isn't any polling results.

Normally, endorsements are based upon an agreement with the basic policies of the endorsed person.  Christie lost most of his credibility with me when he endorsed romney.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2011, 03:12:40 pm
York is not a politician.  He is a reporter/columnist.  And he offers no basis for his "insight."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2011, 03:23:09 pm
"The dispute springs from a situation in which police affixed a GPS tracking device to a suspect's car without a proper warrant. It monitored the suspect's movements for several weeks, noting where his vehicle went and how long it stayed at each location.

The above is a case before the Supreme Court.

I have no problems with police placing cameras on intersections and ticketing people that go through the red lights, but the above seems to be a situation where a warrant is needed.  When you place a tracking devise in a car, you are going after a specific person, as opposed to the camera in an intersection where you are policing the general public in a public place.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2011, 03:25:46 pm
Dave, while I would agree, I am afraid the current Court will not.

I also believe there are some real differences in that the tracking device would continue tracking even if the car was in an enclosed garage not visible from the street, or from the air.  Even if once in the enclosed garage it was lowered down to a tunnel and driven off underground, all out of public view.

All of that said, however, I am afraid the current Court will approve it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2011, 03:31:42 pm
"I couldn't swear that he had some untoward intentions, but we all thought his tone was suspect and we didn't feel comfortable putting him in touch with that woman," Donella recalled.

Dambing evidence, if I ever hear any.

But I am glad that he stuck them with the 400 dollar bill.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 08, 2011, 03:33:01 pm
Perhaps I missed it, but York bases his keen insight on..... what, exactly?

I didn't notice York referencing any polling results, or even quoting any insiders in Iowa.  Seems more like wishful thinking than incisive reporting.

You missed it. He doesn't specify the names of the people he talked to, but he is very clear about the fact that he talked to a group of conservative leaders in Iowa. I'm pretty sure I know which group of folks he is referring to. Common sources for this state. One is the former straw poll coordinator from 2007. Another is a radio personality. Another is a former Huckabee Chair.

I know you don't like Santorum, but the fact is that Iowa is a social conservative state. It would shock me if Santorum DIDN'T see a surge here. The article is spot on with what is being said around the state by activists who are not aligned with a candidate.

Laudner was only the first chip to fall. Don't be surprised if/when Bob Vander Plaats endorses Santorum. There are also at least two high-ranking state office holders who are backing him, even though they have not publicly endorsed. One of those really can't come out and endorse, for obvious reasons.

The post-Thanksgiving change in polls is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Cain's 20% is going to go somewhere, just like Bachmann and Perry saw their support leave. There's a dwindling list of candidates to choose from, and they aren't going to Romney or Paul.

The choices are Santorum or Gingrich.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2011, 04:00:07 pm
You missed it. He doesn't specify the names of the people he talked to, but he is very clear about the fact that he talked to a group of conservative leaders in Iowa. I'm pretty sure I know which group of folks he is referring to. Common sources for this state. One is the former straw poll coordinator from 2007. Another is a radio personality. Another is a former Huckabee Chair.

So, if I "missed it," could you cut and paste the text which I missed?

And could you explain why Paul is out?  Didn't he poll 2nd there 4 years ago, and aren't his supporters about the most loyal you will find, precisely those who are most likely to turn out for the caucus?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2011, 04:34:31 pm
Luckily, any of them would beat Obama so it really doesn't matter much.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 08, 2011, 04:40:31 pm
So, if I "missed it," could you cut and paste the text which I missed?

And could you explain why Paul is out?  Didn't he poll 2nd there 4 years ago, and aren't his supporters about the most loyal you will find, precisely those who are most likely to turn out for the caucus?

 Paul probably did poll 2nd here 4 years ago. He finished 5th in the caucus.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2011, 08:19:11 pm
It is very seldom, if ever, that a politician says something that actually changes my feelings about him, probably because I seldom believe anything a politician says.  But Gingrich made a good impression on me today in an interview with fox news.  he was shown the commercial in which he appeared with Pelosi, saying that the Government should do something to stop global warming.

Essentially he said that that was the stupidest thing he has ever done in his political career. 

I can live with that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2011, 09:39:29 pm
Paul... 4 years ago.... finished 5th in the caucus.

I was obviously quite mistaken.  And that seriously reduces my opinion of his chances.  In looking up the results from 2008, he only got 9.93% in the Iowa caucus in 2008, which is about where he is polling now.

I still support his ideas, and he will likely hang around all the way thru the primaries to serve as a force in the convention, but he really needs at least a 2nd in Iowa, and if he is polling now about the same place he finished 4 years ago, his chance of getting the nomination is likely only marginally better than Santorum's.   And Santorum has no chance at all.  :-)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2011, 08:35:38 pm
Rick Perry is doing so badly in tonight's debate, he needs to save himself further embarrassment and simply walk off the stage.

He has no chance whatsoever of getting the nomination after this evening.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 09, 2011, 09:07:42 pm
Haven't watched the debate or seen any clips of it, but based on all the chatter, it sounds like Rick Perry just finished himself tonight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2011, 10:23:18 pm
Bad as the clips will be, the actual overall debate performance was far worse.

He started with speech which simply sounded slightly slurred, just a little thick-tongued, and I commented about it to my wife with his first answer, particularly because it was only about a little less than two weeks ago when the guy looked and sounded genuinely drunk.

Then we had the response when he could not remember the 3rd department he wanted to eliminate (the Department of Energy).

And then in responding to a question about student loan debt and how students could afford college, he gave an answer which was overall quite sound, but which was internally utterly incoherent at one point.

He was terrible.  He really needs to simply pack up his things and head home.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 10, 2011, 12:41:22 pm
Perry was having one of his better debates until he went blank. There's no coming back from that moment.
Wasted a good opportunity too. There were several times when Romney seemed stuttering and grasping for an answer.
First time I've seen him sweat in one of these things.

Nobody took advantage though. Which makes Romney a winner from this debate, since he dominated the air time.

Gingrich was a winner, although the "beat on the moderators" schtick is getting worn out.

Paul, Bachmann and Santorum all made use of what little time they got.  I was almost surprised someone didn't put an amber alert out for them.

Forget the harassment accusations, Cain is a one-trick pony with no depth of knowledge on any issue.
His crash is imminent.

Jon Huntsman wears a toupee. Look at that thing. There is no way that is his natural hair, any more than that is his natural tan.
And that is the most interesting thing there is to say about his participation last night.

My take, in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 10, 2011, 12:45:52 pm
Basically the Republican field consists of one mediocre candidate in Mitt Romney and a bunch of really bad ones. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 10, 2011, 12:49:05 pm
If Huntsman wears a toupee, there is no way he can be a decent president.  Thanks for the info, Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 10, 2011, 12:59:19 pm
I wouldn't say that they're bad. Most are better than what we have now.

They just all have flaws. Nothing new. McCain wasn't exactly caviar. GWB had some baggage. No one's perfect.
You just have to decide which flaws you're willing to go with.

Paul is an economic genius. His isolationist foreign policy is a complete turnoff to anyone who is remotely hawkish.

Gingrich is a master statesman. But his last job in Washington didn't end too well.

Santorum is as experienced and intelligent as anyone in the race, and you can trust there is no scandal waiting.
But his insistence on fighting for the social issues could generate enthusiasm from the progressive vote and create another Obama wave.

Romney has executive experience in business and government. But can you trust him to follow through on any action he's promising to take?
Do you want to give up the advantage on the ObamaCare debate?

IMO, those are the 4 you could go with. I'm backing Santorum. Gingrich would be my 2nd choice, Romney 3rd and Paul 4th.




Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2011, 03:06:51 pm
Santorum doesn't need a scandal to sink him.  On his best days, in bright sunlight he is a disgusting, sanctimonious, hate-filled human being, alternately smirking and scowling.  The guy is the presidential candidate I would LEAST want to drink a beer with, and he is also the Republican presidential candidate I would least trust to be given unbridled discretion to implement policy, not because I would be afraid be might become corrupt, but because I would be afraid he would do the kinds of things he makes clear he would like to do.

Needless to say, I doubt that I will be voting for Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 10, 2011, 03:18:24 pm
Unfortunately, it looks like I am going to be left with Gingrich as my candidate.  Perry and Cain have been pretty well destroyed over issues that have nothing to do with their ability to be president.  And Santorum is too easily mischaracterized by people like Jes.

Paul and Bachmann never really had any appeal to the mass of voters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2011, 05:04:29 pm
You think I mischaracterized Santorum by saying he is not likely to be corrupted?

You might be right at that....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 10, 2011, 05:54:40 pm
As much as I'd like to see Obama go down, I don't see a single Republican candidate without a major problem.  I had hopes for Perry.  Dashed.  Cain.  No longer sure about him.  Perhaps someone out there will be drafted: Jindahl?  Rubio?  Guiiani?  I don't know.

Huntsman and Bachman need to see the handwriting on the wall.

Perry needs to stop embarrassing himself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2011, 06:10:03 pm
Gingrich is moving up strong on the outside.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 10, 2011, 06:34:19 pm
An Obama-Gingrich election would have the potential of being the Democrats' version of Reagan-Mondale.

"What an ass kicking that was.  I don't remember the final count, but, when I went to bed, Reagan had 538 electoral votes; Mondale had three.  That's only three more than I had.  This guy spent $40 million and I almost tied him." - Dennis Miller
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2011, 07:19:06 pm
Mondale was closely associated with the toxic presidency Reagan had replaced.  If Gingrich has such ties to the Bush administration, could you explain them to us?

Reagan also was enjoying a roaring economic recovering in November of 2004.  Could you name anyone on the planet who considers that a possibility a year from now?

Gingrich would handily beat Obama.

Obama could not even beat Santorum, and that is with Obama getting my vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 10, 2011, 07:25:04 pm
An Obama-Gingrich election would have the potential of being the Democrats' version of Reagan-Mondale.

And even if Gingrich did pull off a miracle upset, I think he'd be a terrible president, and he'd do more damage to the conservative and Republican brand than Bush did.  He's way too erratic and undisciplined to do that job.  When he was house speaker, he was known to be an awful manager.  All his campaign staff resigned a few months ago because he couldn't manage his own campaign well.  I'm not even sure why he's so preferable to Romney from a conservative point of view anyway, since he's had plenty of his own apostasies from conservative thinking.

He's a great guy for coming up with creative ideas, but he really doesn't need to be in charge of anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 10, 2011, 07:30:27 pm
Mitt will win the nomination, he'll win the general, and he'll govern as a conservative.  Just like he did as governor.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 10, 2011, 07:49:14 pm
Romney beating Obama?  Are you on dope?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 10, 2011, 07:54:41 pm
Mitt probably has a slightly better than 50-50 chance of winning the general if economic conditions haven't improved between now and 2012. 

I kind of view Obama-Romney being the Democrats' version of Bush-Kerry.  You have a fairly weak but not completely unpopular and well financed incumbent going against a challenger who isn't too offensive and is viewed as fairly solid but also has credibility problems and won't be viewed all that personally popular himself.  Romney probably will have a better chance of beating the incumbent than Kerry, since the main issue in 2012 will be the economy which Romney will have a big edge on Obama over (2004 was about national security, which Bush even as relatively unpopular as he was still had the edge on over Kerry).  Still, even if Romney is the nominee, it will probably be a tough fight unless we've hit Great Depression type levels in the economy.

Incumbent presidents don't lose easily.  2004 was a great example of it.  Bush was viewed unfavorably by more than 50% of the country, but he had money and an opponent that people thought was just as much of a boob (and probably more so) than him.  The only times they've lost in recent history was the Great Depression, Watergate, Jimmy Carter, and a three way race with Ross Perot.  Obama might be the President in a bad economy, but he isn't viewed nearly as unfavorably at this point as Hoover or Carter was.  Obama's probably entering the next election in the same shape as Bush did in 2004.  It's going to take a competent opponent and favorable conditions to beat him.  Saying the Republicans can nominate anybody and count on an easy victory is pretty shortsighted.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 10, 2011, 07:55:51 pm
Jes - what specific policies has Santorum advocated that you object to?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2011, 08:18:13 pm
Incumbent presidents don't lose easily....   The only times they've lost in recent history was the Great Depression, Watergate, Jimmy Carter, and a three way race with Ross Perot.

The Republicans lost Congressional seats in 1974 because of Watergate.  They did not lose the presidency in 1976 because of it, and Ford was not exactly your normal incumbent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2011, 08:51:16 pm
Dave, I don't think enough of Santorum to look much at the policies he advocates, but in the debates he has repeatedly called for both ending the Obama-style practice (shared by many, many Republicans) of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.... and then almost in the next breath called for giving preferential treatment for factory production work over anything else.

Beyond involving a great deal of hypocrisy, favoring industry over other economic choices is as bad as favoring any other given business enterprise or industry over others.  It is misguided, and appears to be the result of Santorum wanting to curry favor with the "blue collar" vote.

But the hypocrisy here is not unusual for Santorum, given his call for "states rights" and Constitutionally limited federal government on one hand, and insistence on imposing on states a Congressional definition of marriage and imposition of federal tort reform on states with the other.  (In 2005 he and Dick Durbin also proposed legislation supported by a bunch of animal rights groups to subject nearly all pet or cat breeders to USDA regulations, including subjecting them to USDA home inspections.  This is NOT a guy who in any way supports "limited government" or Constitutional limits on government unless the limitation would help something else on his agenda.)

He also has called for more military adventurism, seems exceedingly gung-ho about Gitmo, military tribunals, endless detention without trail, the "Patriotic Act" and intrusion on personal liberties in the name of a war on terror (though he would call in a "war on Islamic Fascism" [or some such]) and a war on drugs.

I have seen him in the same breath say (much as I have seen you write) that he does not oppose immigration, but just ILLEGAL immigration, while never addressing the issue of quotas in our immigration law or the fact that the immigration quotas, in addition to being the result of racism, are far too low for anyone who does not in fact oppose immigration.

He also seems to think that any interpretations of our laws, legislative, constitutional or common-law, need to first be filtered thru the Bible as a "higher" source of law.

I would list more, but his website offers very little from the guy as to actual positions, perhaps because when you are as fringey as he, real positions on real issues don't matter a whole lot.

In many ways he reminds me of a Bible-thumping version of Dick Nixon.... just about the worst of all possible worlds.  And, like Nixon, he seemingly has spent his entire adult life either as a government employee, or seeking government employment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 10, 2011, 09:41:55 pm
"I have seen him in the same breath say (much as I have seen you write) that he does not oppose immigration, but just ILLEGAL immigration, while never addressing the issue of quotas in our immigration law or the fact that the immigration quotas, in addition to being the result of racism, are far too low for anyone who does not in fact oppose immigration."

Not being in favor of unlimited immigration is not quite the same as being against ALL immigration. 

Nor does being against immigrants who come here in contravention of our laws equate to being against immigrants who come here legally.  A simple logic course might be of help to you.

The fact that he didn't follow his sentence with a pronouncement about the basis of the quota system is quite another issue, and does not imply anything pertinent about his views on the above issues.

I can't say much about his bible-thumping, since you were rather vague about it.  I have never heard him say that he feels our laws need to be filtered through the bible.  And a quick glance at his web site didn't seem to show much on the issue.  In what way would this "filtering" take place?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2011, 10:48:12 pm
"In what way would this "filtering" take place?

Ask Santorum.

Dave, I am not trying to persuade you not to vote for the guy.  I don't care if you vote for him -- he has no chance of winning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 10, 2011, 10:59:11 pm
Santorum is one of the last candidate I would vote for, just before Romney.  That isn't the point.  I can find no place where he says that these things should be filtered through the filter of the bible.  I admit that I have not searched very intensely.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2011, 09:50:19 am
Santorum is one of the last candidate I would vote for, just before Romney.  That isn't the point.  I can find no place where he says that these things should be filtered through the filter of the bible.  I admit that I have not searched very intensely.

Dave, I never suggested that he said anything should "be filtered through the filter of the bible."

I wrote, "He also seems to think that any interpretations of our laws, legislative, constitutional or common-law, need to first be filtered thru the Bible as a 'higher' source of law."

If you had asked me why I felt that he seems to think that, or what had led me to that impression, I would have gladly explained.  But you did not.  You instead took a comment of mine where I pretty clearly stated my impression of him, and twisted it to suggest that I had written Santorum had actually said that.  (Your post -- I have never heard him say that he feels our laws need to be filtered through the bible.  And a quick glance at his web site didn't seem to show much on the issue.  In what way would this "filtering" take place? )

My impression is based on my memory of Santorum's comments in several broadcast interviews I saw of him about 7 or 8 years ago when he was highly critical of court cases and legislation which served to decriminalize sex between consenting adults of the same sex or which would recognize marriage between two people of the same sex.

But his tone and attitude have not changed.

This is from just two months ago --

 "The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I’m Catholic and subscribe to the Catholic Church’s teaching....  There are some truths that are in fact eternal and based on nature and nature's law. And that's what the church teaches and that's what the Bible teaches and that's what reason dictates.... (You can't) redefine something has been seen as wrong from the standpoint of the church and saying a church is bigoted because it holds that opinion that is biblically based is in itself an act of bigotry."   And then he explained that because of that view, he opposed eliminating laws which criminalize homosexual sex between consenting adults, whether by repeal or judicially.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R4-q-JwF9c

To me that is a pretty clear indication of his belief that the law needs to be filtered through his interpretation of the Bible, and I have seen and heard him take such positions time after time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BillSharp on November 11, 2011, 10:02:24 am
So jes thinks no practicing catholic should be president?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2011, 10:07:41 am
Not at all what I wrote or think, Bill.

I wrote, and think, that I do not want anyone as President who looks to the Bible (or any other religious text) as a significant reference to determine whether conduct or relationships should be legal or illegal.

The fact that Santorum considers homosexuality a sin does not concern me at all.  The fact that he believes what is in the Bible does not concern me at all.  The fact that he is a practicing Christian does not concern me at all.

The fact that he believes conduct should be illegal because he considers it sinful or immoral concerns me greatly.  The fact that he bases his decision on what is sinful on his understanding of the Bible and his understanding of the the teachings of his church concerns me, but to a lesser extent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 11, 2011, 11:17:49 am
Jes can't vote for Paul. Paul is against abortion because he thinks it is immoral.

Damn.

Who's your second choice Jes?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2011, 11:28:46 am
ISF, you misrepresent Paul's position.

There are a great many things which he believes are wrong or immoral and which he does not believe should be illegal.

He believes abortion should be illegal because he believes abortion is killing a human life.

That is the same position I have, and I still support Paul.

Now, as to my 2nd choice?  Gingrich.  Romney is 3rd.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 11, 2011, 11:29:28 am
As for gay marriage, I don't happen to think government should be involved in marriage at all.
Most state codes have definition for general partnership. Just define a new subset as "domestic partnership", define it as an agreement between two people to hold their assets jointly for tax/inheritance purposes, and be done with it. Marriage is a religious institution, if you want to get married, find a church that will perform the ceremony and validate the union.

To Santorum's point, however, I would challenge you to find an instance of gay marriage being formally recognized by a nation anywhere in history prior to the current attempts by states to change the definition.

Precedent doesn't exist. Marriage has always been between males and females.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 11, 2011, 11:34:02 am
No, I'm pretty sure he's saying it is immoral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-bGmajOtU
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2011, 11:38:59 am
To Santorum's point, however, I would challenge you to find an instance of gay marriage being formally recognized by a nation anywhere in history prior to the current attempts by states to change the definition.

I will accept that challenge as soon as you accept mine -- what difference does your challenge make?  I never raised that issue.  I don't care about whether I can "find an instance of gay marriage being formally recognized by a nation anywhere in history prior to the current attempts by states to change the definition."  Whether it has or hasn't been recognized anywhere makes no difference, and whether it is or isn't recognized in this country makes very little difference to me.

No pun intended, but I could go either way on the issue :-) and quite sincerely agree with your position on it, that the state should simply step out of the picture, just as the state was not in the picture several hundred or thousand years ago.

What does concern me is the way Santorum addresses the question, because it is likely a good indication of the way he will address others.

And I no more want a notjob in the White House making decisions based on what he believes he god or the Bible want him to do than I want one running Iran and making decisions based on what he believes his god or the Koran want him to do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2011, 08:07:07 am
Though I have no use for Michelle Bachmann, it appears CBS news crossed the line in their preparation for last night's debate.  All of the Republican candidates should refuse to take part in any further debates associated with CBS, and it would be nice to see them all essentially boycott CBS until CBS came clean on the matter, fired those responsible and made at least some pretense of objectivity.

http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/11/bachmannmemo.jpg

(http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/11/bachmannmemo.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 16, 2011, 07:40:45 am
Bachmann is polling at 4% in the republic race. That makes her irrelvant to the debate other than for her to go batcrazy one or two times for the sound bite.

CBS as well as all other networks want viewers and viewers want to see the candidates who actually can be elected from their party. Of course that doesn't explain the rise of the Tiffany wing of the batcrazy party....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 16, 2011, 10:44:08 am
But you were comfortable when the Democrats included Dennis Kucinich in the 2008 debates?  You should really try not to look like an idiot.

By the way, now that you have been given the proof you whined about, can you now explain how crops grew one thousand years ago where it is too cold to grow those crops today?

If you must use the thoughts and words of someone else, try to use those of an actual scientist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 16, 2011, 03:31:20 pm
You should really try not to look like an idiot.

It's otto.

Don't you think you are setting the bar mighty high?


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 17, 2011, 10:47:48 am
davep

You have not proved anything other than that you know how to search climate change denial sites. 98% of the scientific community is in agreement that current CO2 levels are causing our climate to warm. You find 1 or 2 guys that deny anything that is even happening and that proves what? Actual sceince, that is something the current republic frowns on.

Dennis from 08' and claiming that I posted anything about him? Reacccchhh.

jes

Do tell how is meechelle relvent? She's polling now at 2%

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 17, 2011, 10:55:00 am
The difference, of course, is that you post articles written by left wing bloggers, while I post articles written by actual scientists.

Here is what an actual scientist says about you so called consensus.

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/02/a-consensus-about-consensus.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 17, 2011, 11:06:40 am
Interesting situation going on in Tennessee.

A person that had a sex change operation, changing from male to female, was upset when the DMV refused to issue a new drivers license with the female designation.  That person then went into the DMV parking lot and stripped to the waist, and was arrested for public indecent exposure.

Seems the state is a little confused.  If the person is still a male, what was done was perfectly legal.  If the person was now a female, why not put it on the license.

I wonder if the person was trying to change the name from Justin to Justine?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on November 17, 2011, 11:26:01 am
What was the point of "stripping to the waist"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 17, 2011, 02:05:23 pm
I suppose to show that the state was inconsistent in treating that person as a man in some situations and as a woman in other situations.  If the state considers "her" to be a woman, it should state so on the driver's license.  If the state considers "him" to be a man, it should be allowed to strip to the waist in public without arrest as any man could.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 17, 2011, 02:24:24 pm
What was the point of "stripping to the waist"?


Beads.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 17, 2011, 03:23:36 pm
I never believe stories like this without photos.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 17, 2011, 06:23:45 pm
How do you say "toast" in Cuban?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IG7NxylGLg
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 18, 2011, 10:43:30 pm
It looks like Gingrich is the last man standing as the conservative choice for President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2011, 07:26:03 am
Close.

Paul is not only still standing, he is also rising in the polls, and would do much better with independents than Paul, and would even peel off a decent chunk of Obama's base support as the anti-war and pro-pot left see that Obama has entirely ignored them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 19, 2011, 10:43:32 am
Paul has the same problem as Romney.  Some very devoted followers, but those who do NOT follow him would accept almost anyone BUT him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2011, 11:14:13 am
That is true of SOME of those who do not follow him.  If Paul places well in Iowa and New Hampshire, that position will be pretty clearly shown to be wrong.

And, as I pointed out, while I still believe any challenge candidate will beat Obama a year from now, Paul might well do the best of the lot, because he would also pull a decent chunk of Obama's base.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 19, 2011, 11:21:31 am
I think Ron Paul would be an excellent Republican candidate, and I wholeheartedly hope he gets the nomination.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 19, 2011, 12:36:30 pm
Paul would be more of a disaster for the country than Obama has been.  it doesn't help much to solve our domestic problems if international affairs are going to go to hell as much as they would under Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2011, 01:22:10 pm
dave, just how would they "go to hell," and how will the US be able to do much of anything about international affairs if the US collapses from the financial burden of trying to be the world's policeman?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 19, 2011, 01:42:59 pm
The US is not collapsing because of being the world's policeman.  It is collapsing because of domestic spending and the advent of the nanny state.

It isn't sufficient to bring in someone that will deal with the domestic side, and allow our enemies unfettered development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 19, 2011, 01:56:48 pm
Paul has the same problem as Romney.  Some very devoted followers, but those who do NOT follow him would accept almost anyone BUT him.

Putting Paul and Romney in the same class is laughable.  Romney is widely seen as the most electable, as the most ready and his favorables among Republicans actually leads the pack.  He may not get the nomination but he is the only one of the two that has a shot.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 19, 2011, 03:12:29 pm
Romney is certainly electable in the general election.  But he will have substantial problems in the Republican primaries  for the same reason that Paul will have problems there.  There are a great many people that will vote in the republican primary that do NOT want Romney or Paul to be their candidate (for different reasons).

That does not put them in the same "class".  It merely points out one similarity between the two.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2011, 06:26:07 pm
Putting Paul and Romney in the same class is laughable.

True, one takes principled positions, even if unpopular, and tries to persuade people to agree with him.

The other looks for the position that has the most people agreeing with it and insists that it is his.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2011, 06:41:52 pm
The US is not collapsing because of being the world's policeman.  It is collapsing because of domestic spending and the advent of the nanny state.

It isn't sufficient to bring in someone that will deal with the domestic side, and allow our enemies unfettered development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Dave, it is an utter fantasy to think military spending is not also responsible.  Military spending grew at least as much under Bush as domestic spending.  I am NOT a supporter of any of this nation's social welfare programs and believe we should eliminate all of them, but if you look thru history you will find countless empires which collapsed because they became over-extended militarily: ancient Egypt, the Persian Empire; the Mongol Empire; the Hun Empire; Rome; Spain, Napolean, the Ottoman Empire, England and the Soviet Union.  None of them collapsed because of "domestic spending and the advent of the nanny state."  And the "nanny state" which we have in the US is less than exists in most of the industrialized world.  It is not the "nanny state" which threatens to bring our collapse.

As to our enemies having and developing nukes, and the US not doing anything about it, the Soviets had nukes, and the cost of their nuclear program helped to bring them down.  The Koreans developed nukes under one of the most interventionist presidents in history, and Pakistan was known to be developing them back as far as Reagan and the elder Bush, with neither of them preventing it, and the US made no effort to stop China, either.  And Iran was thought to have been months away even when the last Bush was in office.  There is relatively little the US can do to prevent a nuclear Iran, much as I wish we could.  Spending trillions of dollars we borrow from China and failing to prevent that development is foolishness on stilts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 19, 2011, 07:17:00 pm
True, one takes principled positions, even if unpopular, and tries to persuade people to agree with him.

The other looks for the position that has the most people agreeing with it and insists that it is his.


I would think for a guy who knows everything you would have looked into the record instead of believing the narrative.  Mitt made a switch on abortion and now the narrative is he is a flip flopper.   He hasn't flipped on anything that I know of since then.  Gay rights?  Nope, gun control, nope.  Find me something in which he has shifted other than abortion. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 19, 2011, 07:18:03 pm
One more thing, Paul has received so many goodies for his district over the years it isn't funny.  So much for believing the government shouldn't be handing out money.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 19, 2011, 07:48:19 pm
Jes - the difference is that one is the actual constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government, and the other is not.  If you eliminate all spending that is actually authorized by the Constitution, we would be floating in money with one third the taxes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 19, 2011, 08:10:52 pm
isn't
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2011, 09:45:55 pm
Mitt made a switch on abortion and now the narrative is he is a flip flopper.   He hasn't flipped on anything that I know of since then.  Gay rights?  Nope, gun control, nope.  Find me something in which he has shifted other than abortion.

I assume you are actually talking about his positions, and not just his claim to be a serious hunter, and then admitting that he had walked in the woods once or twice in his life while he carried a gun.... or his absurd contortions to distinguish RomneyCare from ObamaCare, so I won't mention either of them.... and it is still easy:

From http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/160351/20110609/mitt-romney-flip-flop.htm

'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.'

'I did not see it with my own eyes.'

 

'I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose.'

'I never really called myself pro-choice.'

 

'I believe the tax on capital gains should be zero.'

'It's a tax cut for fat cats.'

 

'I like mandates. The mandates work.'

'I think it's unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.'

 

'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.'

'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'

 

'I would like to have campaign spending limits.'

'The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations.'

 

'I don't line up with the NRA.'

'I'm a member of the [NRA].'

(Romney also claimed NRA endorsement he never received  -- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2007/12/romney-claims-nra-endorsement.html) 

 

'I'm not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts.'

'Social Security's the easiest and that's because you can give people a personal account.'

 

'Roe v. Wade has gone too far.'

'I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.'

 

'I'm a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering.'

'I changed my position."


From Mother Jones --
During an August 25 campaign stop in Exeter, New Hampshire, candidate Romney said this, according to Holly Shulman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party: "You know, I think it's kind of presumptuous for someone running for president to already, you know, have in mind who would be their vice president."

Now here's what the former Massachusetts governor announced at a fundraiser at the Virginia Beach home of Republican state senator Jeff McWaters on July 25, according to the right-wing website Bearing Drift:

Romney said that [Virginia Governor Bob] McDonnell has been an "incredible governor" and will be on "any candidate's short-list" for Vice President...[H]e reiterated that the short list is "McDonnell, Governor Christie of New Jersey and Marco Rubio of Florida."


And the recent one on the union negotiating ballot initiatives in Ohio -- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/26/1030228/-Mitt-Romney-flip-flops-on-his-own-flip-flop-on-Ohio-ballot-initiatives

Romney used to say he agreed with the Global Warmists, saying that it was settled science, and that government needed to act.... Now that he wants the Tea Party vote, he has changed his position considerably.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWw8bNPFI9g

And on gays -- http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/17/yet-another-mitt-romney-flip-flop-this-one-involving-the-gays

Mitt Romney in 1993: "Speaking... to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as 'perverse,' according to several people present at the meeting."

Mitt Romney in 2002: “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference.”


And more recently he has moved back to the right on "gay rights."  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20088274-503544.html   Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has signed a pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising to support a federal constitutional amendment "defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

My favorite was his pandering to Michigan in 2008 when he promised he would have the federal government bail out the auto industry, and later denied it, in fact claiming that when he said he would have the federal government help the auto industry, what he meant was he would let the automakers go bankrupt and head to bankruptcy court.  That one was classic.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmYasS9p9zs

There are plenty of highlight reels out there.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIeekoQfqVU&feature=related  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m_Rh235HLo

In favor of  TARP at the time... but opposed to it later.

On the issue of consistency itself -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViYmkhZqgXw

The guy has no core.

Now, granted, not having a core is preferable to having a core which is socialist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 19, 2011, 09:49:48 pm
Jes - the difference is that one is the actual constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government, and the other is not.

That is a different issue entirely.

I would like to see the federal government end ALL social welfare programs, industry subsidies, or wealth transfers.  I have never suggested eliminating the military.  And before the current budget problems, I was not even urging major cuts.  We HAVE to cut it now.  We really have no choice -- cut or collapse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 19, 2011, 11:32:25 pm
If we end ALL social welfare programs, industry subsidies, or wealth transfers, we won't have any problems meeting our military budget as it is now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2011, 05:33:08 am
And if the dog hadn't stopped to sh*t, he would have caught the rabbit.

I would like to end all of them, but the possibility of that happening is virtually non-existent.  The possibility of our collapse as a result of our excessive spending is not.  THAT possibility is quite real.  That being the case we have to cut spending wherever possible, and it certainly is possible to cut massively from military spending.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Ray on November 20, 2011, 05:45:28 am
I haven't figured out if the Republican Presidential candidates get worse and worse every election, or if an overzealous media just makes it appear that way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:17:25 am
I assume you are actually talking about his positions, and not just his claim to be a serious hunter, and then admitting that he had walked in the woods once or twice in his life while he carried a gun.... or his absurd contortions to distinguish RomneyCare from ObamaCare, so I won't mention either of them.... and it is still easy:

From http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/160351/20110609/mitt-romney-flip-flop.htm

'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.'

'I did not see it with my own eyes.'

 

I'll start at the top and work my way down.  You claim Romney fabricated seeing his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. However, Mitt is not the only one with this impression. Others have taken it further, claiming Mitt's father, George Romney, and King marched side by side.

Eyewitness Ashby Richardson says she was "only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were."(21) Another eyewitness, Shirley Basore, recalls, "They were hand in hand." Wilma Wood Henrickson wrote in her 1991 book "Detroit Perspectives" that "Governor George Romney and Walter Reuther were among the prominent whites marching with Reverend King." David S. Broder wrote in his 1967 book, The Republican Establishment, that George Romney "has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit."

Critics claim there are no official records of the two marching together in person. However, the question is not whether Romney actually marched with King but whether King and Romney left the impression they had marched together. Clearly, they did. In addition to Romney giving outspoken support for King, and King commenting favorably on the prospect of Romney becoming president (22), residents had reason to make a visual association between the two because Michigan television showed both leading marches, with stock footage montaged together. Thus people "saw" them marching together, consistent with the impression expressed by Romney, who was a young teenager during the 1963 March.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:20:01 am
I assume you are actually talking about his positions, and not just his claim to be a serious hunter, and then admitting that he had walked in the woods once or twice in his life while he carried a gun.... or his absurd contortions to distinguish RomneyCare from ObamaCare, so I won't mention either of them.... and it is still easy:

From http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/160351/20110609/mitt-romney-flip-flop.htm

'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.'

'I did not see it with my own eyes.'

 

'I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose.'

'I never really called myself pro-choice.'


This is an easy one and I already addressed it.  Mitt was personally pro-life but believed the government shouldn't have a role in the decision.  He switched, so what.  Isn't that the goal of the pro-life movement?  To gain converts to the idea that government should have a role in protecting the unborn?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:21:51 am
'I like mandates. The mandates work.'

'I think it's unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.'

How is this a flip?  He has said all along that the states have the right to construct their own plans but imposing a one size fits all solution on the country is not constitutional and tramples on the 10th amendment.  His stance has never changed. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:26:24 am
'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.'

'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'

Each quote was made in reference to a different context. The 2007 statement was in reference to himself in the '60s as a single young man serving as a missionary; the 1994 statement was in reference to himself as a married man with a new child in the '70s.

In the context of the 2007 statement, Romney was a single young man on a draft deferment for missionary service in France. In the other context, five years later, Romney was married with a new child; his deferment for mission and school had ended and Romney entered the draft lottery. When quoting Romney's statements, critics leave out the parts of the quotes which contain the context. What Romney actually said in 2007 is: "I really don't recall thinking about political positions when I was knocking at the door in France. I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."(16)

In 1994, this is what Romney said, in context: "I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft. If drafted, I would have been happy to serve, and if I didn't get drafted I was happy to be with my wife and new child"(17)

Note that when Romney said it had not been his desire to serve in Vietnam, he also explained, in the line critics leave out, that he would have still been "happy" to serve if drafted. In addition to the other context critics leave out, they also fail to mention that Romney's father publicly dropped his support for the Vietnam war while Mitt was on his mission. When Mitt left on his mission, his father was an avid supporter of Vietnam. When Mitt returned home, his father avidly opposed the war(18), thereby lessening Mitt's enthusiasm for serving. Of final note is that the reporter who quoted Mitt in 1994 blundered by asserting, falsely but forgivably, that Romney's statement about his wife and child was in reference to his "missionary days."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2011, 10:30:20 am
Robb, I did not use the daddy and MLK line to show Romney was a liar, as was clearly the case with Obama's claim that his folks got together as a result of the march in Selma.... four years after Obama was born.

I used those two lines to show a clear flip-flop, first claiming that he "saw" it, and then saying he did not "see it with my own eyes."  If he had said he was talking about seeing his father figuratively walking with King, that would not qualify as a flip or a flop, but the guy is a flip-flopper.  Denying it hurts your own credibility.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:38:10 am
'I don't line up with the NRA.'

'I'm a member of the [NRA].'

context is a wonderful thing.  He stated in 1994, "In an interview with the Boston Herald during the 1994 campaign, Romney positioned himself as a moderate outsider, warning special interest groups to stay out of the race... “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” he said at the time. “I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.” "

He said in 2007, " “I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue.”

He said in 2007, "“I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don't.”"

He said in 2008, "“I believe people have a right to bear arms under the Constitution. I don't support entirely every aspect that the NRA might put forward, but I joined the NRA because I support their objectives overall...”"

I don't see any inconsistency in these statements.  He believes in gun rights, has always believed in gun rights.  Was lauded by the NRA including Grover Norquist who is a board member for enacting legislation that made it easier on gun owners and in fact protected the rights of gun owners who were looking down the barrel at a new law against hunting rifles. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:41:42 am
'I'm not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts.'

'Social Security's the easiest and that's because you can give people a personal account.'

So now he is flip flopping because he is now considering reforms to social security?  In 1994 he said, "I don't think you go back and rewrite the contract the government has with people who've retired."(5) However, not only have circumstances changed since 1994, but Romney's positions are not contradictory. Guaranteeing promised benefits to retired seniors does not mean social security cannot be altered for those who are not retired, such as through personal accounts or changing the retirement age.

Some have accused Romney of hypocrisy because Romney wants to save social security yet allegedly called social security a “criminal enterprise.” However, it was not Romney but Texas Governor Perry who used those words in mischaracterizing Romney’s statement. In reality, Romney was attacking Congress for hurting social security, and therefore was not attacking social security but defending it. Romney has consistently defended social security. What Romney actually said:

“To put it in a nutshell, the American people have been effectively defrauded out of their social security. In 1982, the government raised social security taxes with the intention of creating a surplus that could be set aside in some fashion for the baby boomers when they retired. But for the last thirty years, the surplus has been spent, not on retirement security, but on regular budget items.

“Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for it’s own purposes so that when the grandchildren turned 18, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.” (No Apology, HC, p. 157-58)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:42:54 am

'Roe v. Wade has gone too far.'

'I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.'

As I said, he changed his position on Pro-life,  this is the same thing as above. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:43:40 am
'I'm a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering.'

'I changed my position."

So you are saying he flip-flopped on flip-flopping?  Huh?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:45:41 am
During an August 25 campaign stop in Exeter, New Hampshire, candidate Romney said this, according to Holly Shulman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party: "You know, I think it's kind of presumptuous for someone running for president to already, you know, have in mind who would be their vice president."

Now here's what the former Massachusetts governor announced at a fundraiser at the Virginia Beach home of Republican state senator Jeff McWaters on July 25, according to the right-wing website Bearing Drift:

Romney said that [Virginia Governor Bob
 McDonnell has been an "incredible governor" and will be on "any candidate's short-list" for Vice President...[H]e reiterated that the short list is "McDonnell, Governor Christie of New Jersey and Marco Rubio of Florida."

Really?  Is this the best you can do?  This is so laughable I won't even respond.  Or to put it in context you might better understand.  Motion to strike is granted. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:47:50 am
"And the recent one on the union negotiating ballot initiatives in Ohio"

Critics accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on John Kasich's collective-bargaining law in Ohio, claiming Mitt refused to comment on a ballot referendum concerning the law but then expressed his support the following day. In reality, Romney did not refuse to comment on the ballot measure but in fact had been refusing to comment on the other two ballot measures. As he stated the following day, “What I was referring to is I know there are other ballot questions there in Ohio and I wasn’t taking a position on those.” He added that he supports Kasich “110%.” All of the evidence supports Romney's account and contradicts the claim of critics from the beginning.

Initially, Mitt came under fire for telling reporters, “I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues.” However, Mitt did not say this in response to any question about the collective-bargaining measure. Rather, a group of reporters had gathered around Mitt and began asking multiple questions. Romney addressed his response to the entire group of reporters, not to any specific reporter.

Romney's complete statement explicity says he's talking about only "the two" out of the three measures:

“I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues. Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the effort of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party’s efforts here.”

Moreover, his original statement offers explicit support for “the Republican Party’s efforts here,” and “the effort of the governor to reign in the scale of government,” evidently expressing support for the collective bargaining measure.

Some of the details cited by critics attempting to paint Romney as flip-flopping actually support Romney's account. For instance, Politico pointed out that Mitt had expressed support for Kasich’s law in June, and Romney was visiting a phone bank where supporters of Kasich's reforms were making calls in support of the collective-bargaining measure, at the time of the "controversial" statement.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:53:01 am
"Romney used to say he agreed with the Global Warmists, saying that it was settled science, and that government needed to act.... Now that he wants the Tea Party vote, he has changed his position considerably.  "

You allege Mitt Romney flip-flopped on Global Warming because he has stated that he believes man contributes some to global warming, although he was quick to state that he doesn't know how much, while on another occasion he stated his opposition to cap-and-trade. This is not a flip-flop however, for multiple reasons. First, Mitt Romney while Governor rejected a regional cap-and-trade initiative, and has consistently opposed cap-and-trade. Second, Mitt Romney stated his full position in his book, No Apology, and his position contains an acknowledgement of the earth's temperature rising, an acknowledgement that he doesn't know how much man is contributing, an acknowledgement of reasons to be skeptical of what climate scientists are saying, and an acknowledgement that cap-and-trade is a very bad idea. None of these things are contradictory. They are all part of his position, which is a "no regrets" policy of only doing things which reduce carbon if those things are also beneficial economically. He gives the examples of natural gas and nuclear power expansion, as well as efficiency in power plant technology and other actions to make us energy independent.

Here’s a sample of what Romney said in his book (Hardcover, pages 227-230):

    “I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies … Of course, there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now … If developing nations won’t curb emissions, even extreme mitigation measures taken by the United States and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Romney's position is consistent with a statement made by Texas Governor Rick Perry at the Reagan Library debate on September 7, 2011. Perry likewise implied that mankind has some impact but he does not know how much:

    “The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we’re going to put America’s economics in jeopardy.”

Mitt uses more “honey” than “vinegar” and looks for common ground in explaining his positions, but the substance of his claim that man is contributing "some" is undeniable. Even if we set aside the question of greenhouse gases, the mere act of burning fossil fuels generates heat which otherwise would not be released. This is a relatively tiny amount of heat, but enough to have "some" effect. Similarly, man's corresponding carbon emissions have "some" effect on warming, through the greenhouse effect. No one disputes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - not Glenn Beck, not Rush Limbaugh, not Mitt Romney. The dispute over global warming is not about whether man contributes to warming, but whether the amplification effect of that warming surpasses the earth's moderating forces. For instance, the warming caused by man's carbon emissions enables the atmosphere to hold slightly more water. Since water also acts as a greenhouse gas, this in turn creates slightly more warming which then allows even more water to be held in the atmosphere, which creates more warming and more water, in a repeating cycle. This is the amplifying effect which global warming enthusiasts, from Al Gore to Al Franken, believe is getting out of control. But climate is extremely complex and has many moderating factors which we do not understand. No one knows how much the earth will moderate the amplification cycle. And that goes both ways. The climate scientists don't know, the global warming enthusiasts don't know, and the climate change skeptics don't know. So, how can anyone criticize Mitt Romney's observation that man is contributing "some" to global warming while at the same time stating that he doesn't know if it is enough to cause the noticeable trend in warming? Until Romney's critics can answer "how much?" they have no grounds for criticizing him.

Some have criticized a law Romney enacted as Governor, claiming it is primarily a global warming effort. In reality, the bill was about excessive pollution from four power plants, and Romney cited an aging coal-fired plant spewing pollutants in the densely populated state of Massachusetts, as his flagship example. Carbon dioxide was only one of the substances regulated to ensure the plants were not excessively polluting.

As for the impact on climate change, Romney stated at the time:

    "If climate change is largely caused by human action, this will really help. If we learn decades from now that climate change isn’t happening, these actions will still help our economy, our quality of life, and the quality of our environment."

The problem wasn’t that the plants were producing too much energy, but that they were producing energy inefficiently and thus polluting excessively.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:55:21 am

And on gays -- http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/17/yet-another-mitt-romney-flip-flop-this-one-involving-the-gays

Mitt Romney in 1993: "Speaking... to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as 'perverse,' according to several people present at the meeting."

Mitt Romney in 2002: “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference.”

And more recently he has moved back to the right on "gay rights."  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20088274-503544.html   Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has signed a pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising to support a federal constitutional amendment "defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

The fact is, Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. When asked in 1994, Romney said: "I line up with Gov. Weld on that ... he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position". When asked again in 2002 if he supported gay marriage, Romney still answered "no".

Critics also point to Romney's disagreement with a proposed constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage, House Bill 4840, which was both proposed and shot down prior to Romney becoming governor. However, Romney's disagreement with the amendment was not over its clause which banned gay marriage, but over a separate clause, which Romney feared "would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples"(25). The problem with the amendment is that it falsely implied that Massachusetts law itemized "benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage," which the amendment prohibits in non-marital relationships. Without itemization in the law, the prohibition was without limit.

When gay marriage came before the MA Supreme Court, Romney fought against the decision which made gay marriage a right. As governor he had to enforce the ruling, which some have faulted him for doing, but critics do not apply that standard to other issues, for instance faulting Pro-Life governors for enabling abortions in their states because of court decisions legalizing abortion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 10:59:03 am
"My favorite was his pandering to Michigan in 2008 when he promised he would have the federal government bail out the auto industry, and later denied it, in fact claiming that when he said he would have the federal government help the auto industry, what he meant was he would let the automakers go bankrupt and head to bankruptcy court.  That one was classic."

You are a lawyer, right?  I mean I listened to what he said in MI which was that we wouldn't turn his back on the auto industry or the people working there.  Then he said that the best thing for the industry was a managed bankruptcy which is EXACTLY what saved them.  He not only wasn't pandering, he was right.  My gosh your two videos actually support Mitt. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 11:06:02 am
I could keep going but as I said,  you have bought into the narrative.  If you actually look into the context of what he has said and done in his time in the public square, the only thing you can hang your hat on is his switch from pro-choice to pro-life.   A switch Ronald Reagan himself made.  In 2008 Mitt was considered a conservative, the only one in the race.  He hasn't changed his positions on anything and yet now he is a liberal. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 20, 2011, 11:42:48 am
And if the dog hadn't stopped to sh*t, he would have caught the rabbit.

I would like to end all of them, but the possibility of that happening is virtually non-existent.  The possibility of our collapse as a result of our excessive spending is not.  THAT possibility is quite real.  That being the case we have to cut spending wherever possible, and it certainly is possible to cut massively from military spending.

If you mean politically possible, perhaps.  But in this period where the US has more legitimate enemies than in the past, cutting the military would be the most foolish thing we could do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2011, 11:58:23 am
'I don't line up with the NRA.'

'I'm a member of the [NRA].'

context is a wonderful thing.  He stated in 1994, "In an interview with the Boston Herald during the 1994 campaign, Romney positioned himself as a moderate outsider, warning special interest groups to stay out of the race... “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” he said at the time. “I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.” "

He said in 2007, " “I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue.”

He said in 2007, "“I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don't.”"

He said in 2008, "“I believe people have a right to bear arms under the Constitution. I don't support entirely every aspect that the NRA might put forward, but I joined the NRA because I support their objectives overall...”"

I don't see any inconsistency in these statements.  He believes in gun rights, has always believed in gun rights.  Was lauded by the NRA including Grover Norquist who is a board member for enacting legislation that made it easier on gun owners and in fact protected the rights of gun owners who were looking down the barrel at a new law against hunting rifles.

Yes.  Context is a wonderful thing.  At one time the context was trying to win favor of those who want gun control and he said he did not line up with NRA to make them feel he was on their side, and the other contest was in trying to persuade 2nd Amendment supporters that he was with them because he belongs to the NRA.

It was, as with the other examples, another perfectly valid example of inconsistency and flip flopping.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2011, 12:00:38 pm
I could keep going but as I said,  you have bought into the narrative.

When the "narrative" is accurate, it makes sense to buy it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 20, 2011, 12:16:41 pm
No, context is exactly what I provided.  Your answer is nothing more than buying into the narrative which is lazy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2011, 12:37:41 pm
If you mean politically possible, perhaps.  But in this period where the US has more legitimate enemies than in the past, cutting the military would be the most foolish thing we could do.

Having a lot of enemies should only lead to 900 military bases all over the globe if those bases would help us defend against whatever threat those enemies pose, help us more than alternative expenditures, can be afforded, and do not actually create more hostility toward the US.

Very few of those enemies are able to do anything which the troops overseas can do anything about, and our presence in those bases often actually increases the number of people who want to do us harm.

When the "legitimate enemies" you are talking about are still incapable of invading us, we have no need to have a base in their country.  When the "legitimate enemies" would be attacking us thru terrorism and not invasion, it is more important that we conduct ourselves in such a manner as to avoid causing so many people in so much of the world to hate us.  And when the "legitimate enemies" do not lend themselves to battlefield conflict, the bases are not only of limited value to protect us, but are downright counter-productive.

Much of our worldwide military presence is not to protect us, but to protect other nations, such as Korea.  And we should not be going into debt to provide military defense for other nations.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2011, 04:12:35 pm
Ever wonder how Nancy Pelosi got rich?

http://www.breitbart.tv/new-ad-calls-for-pelosi-resignation-after-insider-trading-revelations/

Congress should either get rid of the insider trading rules because the rules do not really help anyone, or apply them to members of Congress, too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 21, 2011, 12:28:24 pm
Robb, you're wasting your time. I saw hundreds of people like this at the Ames Straw poll.
They wear colonial-style hats, have dixie flags on the backs of their Harleys and only know two words...Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2011, 12:35:20 pm
Anyone, including Mitt Romney, who tries to persuade anyone that Mitt Romney does not aggressively pander to his audience, does not change his position to fit the moment and satisfy voters instead of trying to persuade voters his position is right even though if it might seem at odds with theirs, has no true set of core beliefs, and is not the personification of a "flip-flopper," is indeed wasting his time.

I am not saying Romney would be a bad president, and I certainly am not saying I would vote for Obama over Romney.  But those are vastly different questions from whether he is a "flip-flopper" or not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 21, 2011, 03:36:17 pm
Every politician aggressively panders to his audience.  That's how they get elected.  So yo look at their record in office to see how they will govern.  Fact is, Romney has done the things this country needs already as a governor and CEO of the Olympics and as CEO of Bain capitol, namely; streamiling, cutting away the fat and modernizing to allow the entity to succeed and come in at or under budget.  He's done it dozens of times.  Would any conservative be upset with a President who did such things?  Yet that isn't enough.  He has no core, he is plastic, he flip-flops, blah blah blah.  Give me the name of a politician, I will show you multiple flip flops.  The thing with Mitt is that it has become the narrative because he switched on abortion.  Like I said earlier, with real research one can see that he is as consistent as anybody else is.  Of course that doesn't play into the narrative so the idiots just keep beating the drum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2011, 06:17:27 pm
Give me the name of a politician, I will show you multiple flip flops.

Ron Paul.

Please give me a few examples of him pandering to an audience by simply telling them what they wanted to hear.  He is saying now about the same thing he said 30 years ago.  He consistently advances his position, even when it is not particularly popular with his audience.

The reason "the narrative" is believed about Romney is that it is accurate.  "Narratives" quite often are.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 21, 2011, 06:32:13 pm
The super committee failed to reach an agreement.  What is the impact of that failure?

Absolutely nothing.

Absolutely no cuts go into effect until January 1, 2013, when a new Congress comes into session.  No Congress can pass a law that ties the hands of future congresses.  The new Congress can merely put forth whatever budget it wants to, and no current law can restrict that.

Current law requires Congress to pass a budget on a timely basis every year.  In spite of that law, NO budget has been passed for the last two years.  And nothing happened.

The President in 2012 CAN veto a budget, if passed.  If there is a Republican President and Congress, that won't happen.  If Obama is still President, and vetos the budget bill, Congress can just continue without a budget, as it has for the past two years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2011, 06:55:14 pm
Weasels.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 21, 2011, 07:08:51 pm
Who?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2011, 07:34:30 pm
Congress.  Pretty much all of it.

But not all politicians are weasels.

Some of them are "manly men."

Like Rick Santorum who wants to have the US not only continue whacking without trial or even indictment anyone the president (particularly if HE is president) orders be whacked if the prez determines that they are connected to Al Queda, whether a US citizen or not, with such an order beyond any review, he also wants to have the US start whacking foreign nationals of non-hostile nations if the foreign national is researching weapons the US would not want that nation to get its hands on.  That is found at 11:20 into the video.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/21/exclusive-interview-second-look-at-rick-santorum/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 21, 2011, 08:28:36 pm
Ron Paul!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 21, 2011, 08:46:23 pm
In 1988 Ron Paul wanted to eliminate the border patrol, then in 2008 he put out this ad.  http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2008/01/ron-paul-gets-caught-in-flip-flop-on.html

So in 88 he is for open borders and no security.  In 2008 he flip-flopped and says he wants to secure the border.

He was a Republican, then a Libertarian, then a Republican.

He was for the death penalty before he was against it. 
http://jamesongraber.blogspot.com/2011/10/ron-paul-flip-flops.html

He supported DADT but then voted to repeal it. 

There is much more to this list but you get the point.  If Romney had done any of these things you would be banging the drum that he is without a core.  So,  is Ron Paul in need of a core?  I'll answer for you, no.  Because politicians change their opinions from time to time as they receive new information and as the climate of the country changes.  If they are unwilling to change and learn from past mistakes then they are idiots, much like the current President. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 21, 2011, 09:12:49 pm
As situations change, over a couple of decades, the policy approach for dealing with a situation may also change.  In the case of the death penalty, Paul changed his position at a time when public opinion was swinging in the other direction.  In other words, he changed his position as a matter of principle.

Not quite the same as being pro-abortion as opposed to anti-abortion, or supporting gun rights as opposed to supporting gun control, or supporting an auto industry bail-out as opposed to letting them go bankrupt (and changing that position in a matter of months), or supporting TARP before it was voted on and then opposing it as soon as it was passed.

Romney has no core.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 22, 2011, 10:12:10 pm
Tonight's debate was a great example of why Paul will never be the GOP nominee. Not that foreign policy is his strong point anyway, but Gingrich owned him about 10 minutes in and it didn't get any better from there.

Kicking up the maryjane trade with Hugo ain't the answer to National Security...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 22, 2011, 10:13:29 pm
The Republican nominee = Obama's ****
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 06:13:42 am
ISF, your last post is a great example of why you will never be a political analyst anyone should listen to.

Let me explain.

Gingrich's position on was pretty much the same as the position of every other candidate on foriegn policy, every other candidate EXCEPT Paul, and Paul's position was in line with a sizeable share of the electorate, including Republicans, but with open primaries that position may easily attract large numbers of Democratic voters, particularly when those voters will have no one to vote for in their own primary.

I am not saying Paul is a lock to get the GOP nomination by any means, but merely pointing out that your dismissal of him is remarkably naive.  It essentially reflects your disagreement with his position, not a meaningful opinion as to whether he has a real shot of getting the nomination.

Your comments about Paul's position on marijuana likewise ignores the fact that most voters agree with his position, and I believe it has reached the point where even most Republican voters agree with it.

Paul will likely see his ratings improve after the debate because he was the only person on the stage advancing the positions he did, while the others all voiced remarkably similar positions on foreign policy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 23, 2011, 08:12:11 am
ISF is not a political analyst.  He is a political agent, working for a specific candidate.  It seems foolish to expect him to give both sides of an issue when it touches on his candidate, just as it is foolish to expect a defense lawyer to give both sides of the evidence when discussing his client.

I suspect that there are some defense lawyers who do not stress evidence that hurts their client, but instead stress evidence that helps their client.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 23, 2011, 08:19:25 am
If you think that most Republican voters are in line with Paul then you need to quit smoking the stuff he wants to make legal. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 08:24:05 am
dave, I stand corrected.

ISF may one day be a political analyst someone should listen to.  At the moment he is not even an effective political agent in his spin.... for all of the reasons I mentioned above.

Now, as to your expectations of defense lawyers, those who are effective know that you in fact do need to "give both sides of the evidence when discussing" their client.  They need to do so in order to maintain credibility.  That doesn't mean the present them with equal enthusiasm, but they do have to address them, or they generally will very quickly lose credibility and fail to persuade anyone.  You are correct that they will not stress both sides equally, but they do generally give both sides.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 23, 2011, 09:30:16 am
ISF, your last post is a great example of why you will never be a political analyst anyone should listen to.

Ron Paul!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 09:33:33 am
ISF, while I have made clear that I support Paul, I don't think I have ever said he is most likely to win the nomination.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 23, 2011, 09:41:35 am
Gingrich's position on was pretty much the same as the position of every other candidate on foriegn policy, every other candidate EXCEPT Paul, and Paul's position was in line with a sizeable share of the electorate, including Republicans, but with open primaries that position may easily attract large numbers of Democratic voters, particularly when those voters will have no one to vote for in their own primary.

I am not saying Paul is a lock to get the GOP nomination by any means, but merely pointing out that your dismissal of him is remarkably naive.  It essentially reflects your disagreement with his position, not a meaningful opinion as to whether he has a real shot of getting the nomination.

Your comments about Paul's position on **** likewise ignores the fact that most voters agree with his position, and I believe it has reached the point where even most Republican voters agree with it.

Paul's position is indefensible to 90% of the Republican electorate. Paul might well attract some Independents to caucus for him, but they are accounted for in the 12-14% ceiling he is given by every credible politico in the state of Iowa. And since Paul's hopes, like those of every other candidate not named Romney, are pinned to winning Iowa, he has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination.

That isn't a political agent's view, that is a political analyst's view. One that is shared, again, by every credible analyst in the state.
What some lawyer from Tennessee thinks is irrelevant.


Paul will likely see his ratings improve after the debate because he was the only person on the stage advancing the positions he did, while the others all voiced remarkably similar positions on foreign policy.

Paul was completely dismantled by Gingrich and made to look like the isolationist libertarian he is.
His ratings aren't going anywhere. 12-14% of the electorate will follow him off the cliff no matter what he says.
Everyone else thinks he's batsh*t crazy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 23, 2011, 09:47:19 am
But don't take my word for it, the 2007 Ames Straw Poll Coordinator and former Executive Director of the Republican Party of Iowa can tell you the same thing:

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/cnn-national-security-debate-recap-winners-and-losers/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 23, 2011, 09:53:35 am
CNN's Chris Cillizza:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/cnn-republican-debate-winners-and-losers/2011/11/22/gIQAwcdqmN_blog.html?hpid=z1
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 09:55:17 am
Paul's position is indefensible to 90% of the Republican electorate. Paul might well attract some Independents to caucus for him, but they are accounted for in the 12-14% ceiling he is given by every credible politico in the state of Iowa.

We will see.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on November 23, 2011, 10:27:55 am
Iowa -- Do you think Paul (or anyone else) will run as a third-party candidate if Romney is the nominee?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 10:36:17 am
Paul has already more than twice clearly stated that he would not run as a 3rd party candidate in 2012, though he has also made clear that does not mean he will support the eventual nominee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 23, 2011, 10:41:06 am
Quote
Paul has already more than twice clearly stated that he would not run as a 3rd party candidate in 2012 . . .

Not so sure it's all that clearly stated here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/27/ron_paul_will_not_rule_out_a_third-party_run.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/27/ron_paul_will_not_rule_out_a_third-party_run.html)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on November 23, 2011, 10:55:17 am
Yeah, it seems to me that he has left room.  I'm just wondering what (if anything) people involved in the campaigns think he will do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 23, 2011, 11:52:46 am
Too early to say. My hunch is that he won't. The odds of a 3rd party candidate being successful are long, and if he were to run 3rd party and Obama won...well, ostracized might be too tame a word.

What I could see him doing is using it as a lever to influence the VP pick. No one is picking him as the VP, but Rand...

Rubio has said he won't be VP choice. If he sticks to that, I could see Rand getting a long look. He'd satisfy the Paulbots and he's popular with the Tea Party and many in the GOP establishment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 23, 2011, 12:09:31 pm
Santorum now tracking 4th in Iowa. Tied with Bachmann, Cain at 6%, ahead of Perry. Difference is that their numbers are in decline.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/

Gingrich launches 19 points to 27%, but he'll lose a bit of that after his support for amnesty last night.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 23, 2011, 12:27:40 pm
Gingrich launches 19 points to 27%, but he'll lose a bit of that after his support for amnesty last night.

He might not lose that much.  Nate Silver had a pretty interesting take on that today.  He noted that 54% of Republicans in a CBS survey favored some type of forgiveness for illegals and that Gingrich's view was in line with Reagan's, which may at least make his position forgiveable since many Republicans feel Newt's head and heart are at least in the right place for them.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/gingrich-immigration-and-what-would-reagan-do/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 23, 2011, 12:32:54 pm
Yeah, that's why I said a bit. 46% is alot to alienate, but it will take more than that one position for his numbers to drop significantly.

If the Family leader endorses him (which I doubt, but who knows), he'll run away with Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on November 23, 2011, 01:06:03 pm
Thanks.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 23, 2011, 02:36:58 pm
Please nominate newter republics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 02:48:48 pm

Not so sure it's all that clearly stated here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/27/ron_paul_will_not_rule_out_a_third-party_run.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/27/ron_paul_will_not_rule_out_a_third-party_run.html)


Actually, it is that clear.  Your clip was from October.  This was from a November interview with Chris Wallace, and he has been equally clear at other times this month.

http://race42012.com/2011/11/06/rep-ron-paul-no-3rd-party-run/

From his conversation with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday:
WALLACE: Finally, there is speculation — and I understand, you are running for the GOP nomination. But there is speculation that if you don’t win, you might run as a third party independent candidate.
Can you state flatly that you will support the Republican nominee in the off-chance it isn’t Ron Paul?
PAUL: Well, you know, probably not unless I get to talk to them and find out what they believe in. But if they believe on expanding the wars, if they don’t believe in looking at the Federal Reserve; if they don’t believe in real cuts, if they don’t believe in deregulation and better tax system, it would defy everything I believe in.
And so, therefore, I would be reluctant to jump on board and tell all of the supporters that have given me trust and money that all of a sudden, I’d say, we’ll we’ve done is for naught. So, let’s support anybody at all because even if they disagree with everything that we do.
WALLACE: So, does that mean that you might then consider an independent run?
PAUL: No, it doesn’t mean that at all.
WALLACE: But would you?
PAUL: I have no intention doing that. That doesn’t make sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that.
WALLACE: Because?
PAUL: Because I don’t want to do it. That’s the reason.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 23, 2011, 02:54:12 pm
All this speculation about Ron Paul is time wasted. He has zero chance of being the nominee for the party. He is the most intelligent pol in the republic party which automatically disqualifies him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 23, 2011, 02:56:42 pm
Quote
WALLACE: But would you?

PAUL: I have no intention doing that.

I'm guessing there's not much of a chance of him running a 3rd party campaign, but saying he has "no intentions" isn't the same as being clear he absolutely will not do it.  His intentions may change.  And just because he says he doesn't want to do it doesn't mean he won't. 

I'd say there's a little bit of a gap between what Paul's saying and the Sherman Pledge there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 03:00:38 pm
I'd say there is only a gap if you look for one.

The question which should be asked of each of the Republicans is if they will support the Republican nominee, AND campaign for the nominee, regardless who it is.

I am betting several would leave way more wiggle room in responding to that question than Paul did in responding to Wallace.... and Paul has quite clearly left wiggle room there on that question.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 23, 2011, 06:09:35 pm
Paul (or just about any other Republican running as a third party candidate is the best chance Obama has for reelection.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 23, 2011, 08:33:21 pm
Agreed.  And it is the reason I don't believe Paul would run as a 3rd party candidate, though I can imagine Bachmann or Trump doing so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 23, 2011, 10:24:50 pm
Trump would not be much of a factor, and I doubt that Bachmann would be any more likely to do so than Paul.  I suppose Huntsman could go over to the Libertarian ticket, but I doubt that that would hurt much.

But Paul would be a different situation.  And I agree with you that he is not likely to run as an independent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2011, 06:16:58 am
Paul could easily take 20% of the total vote, but Huntsman could take 10% as a Libertarian,  Bachmann on a "Tea Party" ticket could take 10%, and Trump could take at least 8%.  Any one of them could completely scramble the overall picture and allow Obama to return.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 24, 2011, 06:38:51 am
The only 10% Huntsman would take would be from Obama.  He can't even garner 1% in the primaries.  No way he takes anything from the Republican side in the general.  Paul would take more but no where close to 20%.  In fact i think he would be lucky to get above 5.  He will lose supporters if he runs third party. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2011, 06:48:46 am
Robb, while Paul would lose some of his current Republican support, he would pick up a good deal of the libertarian minded on the left.  He would would seriously shuffle the deck, including the debates.  And if Huntsman ran as a Libertarian, he would draw considerable votes from the Republican candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2011, 06:49:12 am
Take a good look at the map. With this kind of military commitment, there is no way any sane person could argue for cutting back our military spending.

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/387926_10150415582779872_367822059871_8117514_1720245441_n.jpg
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2011, 07:29:40 am
I have commented before on the foolishness of the nation accepting the idea that we are engaged in a "war" with Al Queda or "terrorism" or "radical Islamo-Facsism" or whatever one might want to call the "enemy."  Glenn Greenwald expresses my concerns fairly well.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/what_endless_war_looks_like/singleton/

WEDNESDAY, NOV 23, 2011 6:41 AM EASTERN STANDARD TIME
What Endless War looks like
BY GLENN GREENWALD

U.S. Army soldiers race toward the border from Iraq into Kuwait on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010.  (Credit: AP/Maya Alleruzzo, File)

Anonymous U.S. officials this morning are announcing in The Washington Post that they have effectively defeated what they call “the organization that brought us 9/11″ — Al Qaeda — by rendering it “operationally ineffective.” Specifically, “the leadership ranks of the main al-Qaeda terrorist network have been reduced to just two figures whose demise would mean the group’s defeat, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials said.” And: “asked what exists of al-Qaeda’s leadership group beyond the top two positions, the official said: ‘Not very much’.”

You might think this means that the vastly expanded National Security and Surveillance States justified in the name of 9/11, as well as the slew of wars and other aggressive deployments which it spawned, can now be reversed and wound down. After all, the stated purpose of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) which provided legal cover to all of this was expressed in the very first line: “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” The purpose of this authorized force was equally clear and limited: “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

Now, the group which the U.S. government has always said was the one that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001″ is, according to this same government, “operationally ineffective.” So what does that mean in terms of policy? Absolutely nothing:

U.S. officials stressed that al-Qaeda’s influence extends far beyond its operational reach, meaning that the terrorist group will remain a major security threat for years.

Not just a threat — but a major security threat — “for years” to come. In fact, it turns out that the version of Al Qaeda that the U.S. just spent the last decade “defeating” on the ground that it perpetrated 9/11 does not even really matter: “U.S. counterterrorism officials now assess al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Yemen as a significantly greater threat.” Even in Pakistan, where the “effectively inoperable” group is based, the CIA refuses even to reduce its activities: “letting up now could allow them to regenerate,” an anonymous official decreed. And if that’s not enough to keep your fear levels sufficiently high to support (or at least acquiesce to) more militarism, there is always this: “The arrest this week of an alleged al-Qaeda sympathizer in New York underscored the group’s ability to inspire ‘lone wolf’ attacks.”

That last bit about the “lone wolf” refers to the scary Terrorist Super-Villain, Jose Pimental, caught and unveiled at a dramatic Press Conference this week by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: a Terrorist even more hapless and inept than the failed Texan used car salesman whose chronic inability to find his keys didn’t prevent him from being recruited as a dastardly Terrorist Mastermind by Iran’s elite Quds Force. This latest frightening lone wolf menace, according to The New York Times, “had little money to speak of, was unable to pay his cellphone bill and scrounged for money to buy the drill bits that court papers said he required to make his pipe bombs” and, furthermore, “had trouble drilling the small holes that needed to be made in the metal tubes.” Also, he “lived with his uncle in the Hamilton Heights neighborhood after his mother threw him out recently, appears to be unstable, according to several of the people briefed on the case, three of whom said he had tried to circumcise himself.”

Even the FBI — which specializes in converting hapless Muslim youth into Terrorists and then providing the planning, funding and training for the attacks, so they can jump in at the last minute and heroically disrupt the plots they themselves created — refused to get involved in this case out of “concern that the informer might have played too active a role in helping Mr. Pimentel.” In other words, even the Supreme Entrapers known as the FBI “were concerned that the case raised some entrapment questions” and “wondered whether Mr. Pimentel had the even small amount of money or technical know-how necessary to produce a pipe bomb on his own, had he not received help from the informer.” Also: they’re worried because many of Pimental’s recorded statements were made as he smoked marijuana with the NYPD’s informer as he guided Pimental to attack and instructed him how to do it.

I’m sure we can all agree that we must endure years more of civil liberties assaults, endless war, bulging military budgets, suffocating government secrecy, a sprawling surveillance regime, and the slaughter of countless more Muslim children in order to save ourselves from this existential Lone Wolf threat. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that endless war, drone attacks, occupying countries, and engineering regime change is precisely what causes and fuels these threats in the first place. Indeed, NYPD’s Police Commission Raymond Kelly claimed that “Pimentel’s talk did not ‘turn to action’ until recently” when he “clearly ‘jacked up his speed after the elimination’ of the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by an American drone strike in September.” In other words, what little Terrorism does exist is caused directly by our own actions — the very actions justified in the name of stopping Terrorism.

But this is the defining mentality of Endless War. Enemies are never defeated; even when they are “operationally ineffective,” they “will remain a major security threat for years.” If their capacity to frighten fades, they just get seamlessly replaced by new Villains (“U.S. counterterrorism officials now assess al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Yemen as a significantly greater threat”). When that doesn’t work, you just manufacture the Terrorists yourself: by converting, directing and funding them and/or doing exactly that which you know will ensure they continue to emerge. And when all else fails, you just find a brand new war that ensures the process repeats itself in an endless loop: the establishment bellwether Washington Post today expressly demanded “regime change” in Iran (“by now it should be obvious that only regime change will stop the Iranian nuclear program”).

[more at the link]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 24, 2011, 09:38:52 am
The "war on Terror" is certainly an inaccurate phrase, and is used for marketing rather than anything else.

However, we ARE at war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

The map is extremely misleading.  It makes no allowance for the depth of involvement in the various areas.  We have hundreds of thousands in Europe, and 3 thousand in Australia.  They might as well just color in every country in red, since we have military guards stationed in every embassy in the world.

I agree that we could reduce our presence in Europe and Korea, as well as Japan.  But most personnel would have to remain in the military, and be stationed in the United States, if we still wanted to maintain the same level of standing military as we now do.  The major cost of our military is no longer "foot soldiers" but is the cost of equipment and the training and maintaining the personnel to use them.

That has been one problem with the calculations of how much the war in Iraq, etc has cost us.  They not only added in the cost of National Guard troops activated and utilized, but also the cost of the regular troops who would have to be paid whether they were in Iraq or in Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2011, 10:34:15 am
However, we ARE at war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

That might be a surprise to both of those nations, but if we "ARE at war with Irag" (present tense verb there), it is pretty embarrassing that they have successfully ordered us out of the country.


The map is extremely misleading.  It makes no allowance for the depth of involvement in the various areas.

It is not at all misleading.  It merely does not show what you want it to show.  It shows where we have troops, where we have bases, and where we have added 13 new bases in the last ten years.   If you want it to show something else, you need another map.


I agree that we could reduce our presence in Europe and Korea, as well as Japan.  But most personnel would have to remain in the military

Why?  Why would they "have to remain in the military"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 24, 2011, 11:28:04 am
I guess I just don't see where this Republican support for Huntsman is coming from.  He isn't getting any now.  Why would he suddenly pick up support in the general?  Maybe from the left, certainly not from the right who want to beat Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 24, 2011, 11:45:35 am
Because most of us want a standing military that can be used immediately when desired, rather than have to spend months or years to build it up when it is necessary to make use of it.

Others, of course, see it differently.  That is why we have elections.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 24, 2011, 11:46:36 am
Robb, any candidate's numbers now reflect the first choice of those polled.  With any of the candidates in the Republican field, there are a number of Republican voters who have considerable distaste for that candidate and who would vote for another member of the Republican field if that person ran as a 3rd party candidate, and it would not take too many before it could easily be enough to tilt the general election outcome.  Huntsman and Paul would both be candidates who might peel off a considerable number of otherwise Obama voters if they ran as 3rd party candidates.  Trump might also.  The others would almost exclusively draw votes who would otherwise go to the Republican candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 24, 2011, 11:28:02 pm
True in theory but in practice I haven't seen numbers indicating huntsman as the 5th choice of Republicans let alone the second. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 07:28:51 am
Because most of us want a standing military that can be used immediately when desired, rather than have to spend months or years to build it up when it is necessary to make use of it.

Others, of course, see it differently.  That is why we have elections.

If large standing armies were free, I would agree with you.  They are not.  Others, of course, see it differently.  That is why we have nations financially collapse and end up in the dustbin of history.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 10:20:42 am
If the US has a financial collapse, it will not be because of the military spending that is authorized by the Constitution, but because of the social spending that is not authorized by the constitution.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 12:26:47 pm
dave, that is an absurd position.

Spending is spending.

You and I both oppose nearly all social spending by the federal government because it not Constitutionally authorized, fails to achieve the stated goal, mis-directs economic decision-making, is generally counter-productive, and possibly other shared reasons (I personally view it as theft to forcibly take the earnings of one person to given them to another, but I can't recall you expressing that belief, so I won't attribute it to you).

You and I also both agree that military spending is authorized by the Constitution (though I think you see the authorization as unlimited, and I don't think I would agree there), and that there is a need for a strong military.

We agree on that.

We disagree on how much spending is needed to defend the nation.

So far the agreements and disagreement l have listed is sane and reasonable.

But arguing that military spending does not count when addressing whether we are spending at a sustainable level or in excess of revenues is neither sane nor reasonable.

A dollar spent is a dollar spent.  It is not as if military spending does not get counted.

That is an absurd position and it is one of the reasons for the current mess.  Many on the left insist that everything needs to come from cuts in military spending, and from increasing taxes on "the rich."  Many on the right insist that everything needs to come from cuts in social spending.

A dollar spent is a dollar spent.  ALL federal spending needs to be cut.  Some needs to be entirely eliminated, but it all needs to be cut.

If you look at large, powerful nations in history which have collapsed because of financial problems (which includes nearly all of them), military spending was at the heart of every last one of them.  Social spending may have also been involved, but military spending is ALWAYS involved, and involved in a major way.

We are spending at an unsustainable rate, and not only is military spending a very large chunk of that, we can defend this nation perfectly well for a small fraction of what we are spending today, and if those cuts are made wisely, including bringing home most of the troops we have all over the world, we can actually improve our national security in the process.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 12:51:59 pm
When did I say that military spending did not "count"?

What I said was that military spending, as it is now and has been, will not result in the financial ruin of the country.  Tax receipts are more than sufficient to cover any military needs that we now have or are likely to have in the immediate future.

If I spend most of my money going to strip joints, and am unable to meet my mortgage payments, I am not in financial ruin because of my mortgage payment.  It is because of my trips to the strip joint.  I may, indeed have too large a mortgage, but that in and of itself is not the cause of my ruin.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 01:00:01 pm
When did I say that military spending did not "count"?

If the US has a financial collapse, it will not be because of the military spending that is authorized by the Constitution....

That is essentially arguing that military spending is not a factor in any pending financial collapse.  And it is an absurd position, regardless how you might now try to walk it back.


I may, indeed have too large a mortgage, but that in and of itself is not the cause of my ruin.

Very seldom is the "ruin" of anyone or anything the result entirely of one factor "in and of itself" without the involvement of any other.

Your argument that the nation can financially bear all of its military spending if it just got rid of all of the social welfare spending, and therefor the military spending ought not be blamed or any budgetary problems or face any cuts makes no more sense than the claim which the left could make with an equally straight face that the nation can financially bear all of its current social welfare spending if it just got rid of all of the military spending, and therefor the social welfare spending ought not be blamed or any budgetary problems or face any cuts.

It is an absurd position.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 01:55:16 pm
Very seldom perhaps, but not impossible.  In the instance where too much money was spent on strip shows, it is absurd to place the blame on legitimate expenses.  In the instance where too much money was spent on illegitimate items, it is absurd to place the blame on legitimate military spending.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 02:20:54 pm
Just about every European country now in existence.

Social spending on this scale is a rather recent concept.  But countries that have moved to it are about to drop like flies.  Greece.  Italy.  Portugal.  Spain.  Ireland are imminent.  Others will follow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 03:25:30 pm
While nice examples of social welfare spending which might bring collapse, not one of them, individually, is a major world power on a scale remotely close to the scale of the United States.

But if you look thru history and find other comparable world powers you will find virtually all of them having collapsed because they tried to stretch too far and had military expenses far beyond what they could afford.

I did ask you to "look thru history and give me a list of large, powerful nations which spent their way into financial collapse primarily thru social welfare spending.

It really is not being too picky to point out that none of the PIGS qualify, though Italy, in its former incarnation of Rome would qualify, as would the Spanish Empire of a few hundred years ago.  And those examples (which actually qualify) help to illustrate my point.  Your examples fall somewhat short of the "large, powerful nations" part.

It may be that examples illustrating your contention do exist, though none of the PIGS do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 04:47:46 pm
Since, as I said, social spending is a rather new concept, your elimination of current nations is rather restrictive, unless, of course, your only purpose is to win an argument rather than to arrive at the truth.

Regardless of what has happened to large, powerful nations in the past, the fact remains that military spending is well within the amount that the United States can afford, and will not, in and of itself, result in financial ruin to the United States.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on November 25, 2011, 05:10:36 pm
Huntsman is in the wrong primary.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 05:12:43 pm
Since, as I said, social spending is a rather new concept,

Sorry I missed that claim.

I would have pointed out that it was wrong if I had seen it.

In ancient Egypt the people in the major cities were fed from central stores of food, which certainly sounds like social welfare spending to me.  The same was true in ancient Rome, where the government not only spent on "bread and circuses," they also built public baths.  The USSR certainly had social welfare spending, and, to a much lesser extent so did others I have listed.  Some might suggest that such a clear omission of the USSR, after I had listed it, might suggest that your only purpose is to win an argument rather than to arrive at the truth, but I am certain that could not be the case, so I will assume it is nothing more than an oversight.


Regardless of what has happened to large, powerful nations in the past, the fact remains that military spending is well within the amount that the United States can afford, and will not, in and of itself, result in financial ruin to the United States.

dave, the fact also remains that social welfare spending is well within the amount that the United States can afford, and will not, in and of itself, result in financial ruin to the United States.  Just as I have pointed out before, multiple times.

Very seldom is the "ruin" of anyone or anything the result entirely of one factor "in and of itself" without the involvement of any other.  Your argument that the nation can financially bear all of its military spending if it just got rid of all of the social welfare spending, and therefor the military spending ought not be blamed or any budgetary problems or face any cuts makes no more sense than the claim which the left could make with an equally straight face that the nation can financially bear all of its current social welfare spending if it just got rid of all of the military spending, and therefor the social welfare spending ought not be blamed or any budgetary problems or face any cuts.

A dollar spent is a dollar spent.  ALL federal spending needs to be cut.  Some needs to be entirely eliminated, but it all needs to be cut.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 05:59:58 pm
A dollar spent is indeed a dollar spent.  So the guy that spends all his money in the strip joint goes broke because of his mortgage.

This conversation is getting too silly even for me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 07:00:13 pm
This conversation is getting too silly even for me.

That's because you are trying to make it into a discussion about strip joints and mortgages.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 07:55:41 pm
I want to apologize for a serious error I have made in some of my prior comments on immigration, and in particular in response to those who say they are in favor of legal immigration, but simply oppose illegal immigration, that they think immigration in general is fine, but they simply want people to comply with the rules and enter legally.

I have repeatedly said that ignores the reality of immigration quotas, that the limits on legal immigrants from Mexico are so low that there is virtually no way a Mexican wanting to immigrate to the US for economic and who applied at age 20 for a work Visa would get thru the process before they were 50.

I just ran across something showing that I was wrong.  And I apologize and want to correct myself.

It is worse than that.

The United States limits ALL economic immigrants, worldwide, to 140,000 a year, and that includes those with extraordinary skills, kids from the Dominican or elsewhere needing Visa's to come to play ball in the minor leagues in the US, professionals holding advanced degrees, skilled workers, professionals of any type, investors, and religious workers.  The average laborer from Latin America simply has NO chance of EVER getting into the US legally on a strictly economic application for a Visa (there are other procedures, but those here illegally would essentially only qualify for work Visas -- economic immigrants).

So those saying they are not opposed to immigration, but only illegal immigration, need to understand that the "legal immigration" process essentially allows no typical laborers from Latin America to enter the US.... and when that is the case, immigration opponents really should be honest and say they simply do not want to allow Hispanics to enter the U.S.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 10:03:02 pm
Bullshit.  The current law may well have racial implications.  But that does not mean that all people that are against illegal immigration are in favor of those racial policies.  In fact that does not mean that one single person that is against illegal immigration is in favor of those racial policies.

If the current policies allowed ONLY Latino laborers to enter the US, then I would be against people from England or China from entering illegally, and the vast majority of those I know feel the same way.

By the way, where did you find the number of 140,000 legal immigrants?  I have been unable to verify it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 25, 2011, 10:12:31 pm
The most recent numbers I can find are in the CRS report to congress that covered the year 2002

"During FY2002, a total of 1,063,732 aliens became LPRs in the United States.  Of the total LPRs in FY2002, 63.3% entered on the basis of family ties. Additional major immigrant groups in FY2002 were employment-based preference immigrants (including spouses and children) at 16.4%, and refugees and asylees adjusting to immigrant status at 11.9%. Mexico led all countries with 219,380 aliens who became LPRs in the United States. India followed at a distant second with 71,105 LPRs. The People’s Republic of China came in third with 61,282. These three countries comprised one-third of all LPRs in FY2002."

It seems that in 2002 the vast majority of immigrants were Latinos, and probably, considering the area they came from, were laborers.

Has the country become more racist since 2002?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 25, 2011, 11:11:20 pm
Bull****.  The current law may well have racial implications.  But that does not mean that all people that are against illegal immigration are in favor of those racial policies.

Dave, you need to read more carefully.

So those saying they are not opposed to immigration, but only illegal immigration, need to understand that the "legal immigration" process essentially allows no typical laborers from Latin America to enter the US.... and when that is the case, immigration opponents really should be honest and say they simply do not want to allow Hispanics to enter the U.S.

I did not say you were a  racist.  I said the policy is racist, whether it is racist in its intent or merely in its application makes little difference.

US immigration policy is by its nature exclusionary, and the bulk of those the policy would exclude are Latin American, if only because of proximity.  (Immigration law in the 1800s was quite blatantly exclusionary toward orientals, without any real concern about Hispanic immigrants at that time.  The national mood on who to target for exclusion may vary from one decade to another, but the goal of excluding one ethnic group or another has remained pretty constant since about 1840 when the appropriately named Know Nothings wanted to keep out the Irish.)


The current law may well have racial implications.  But that does not mean that all people that are against illegal immigration are in favor of those racial policies.  In fact that does not mean that one single person that is against illegal immigration is in favor of those racial policies.

Really?  Not one person, in the entire nation, is in favor of the policy which is the law.....   Really?

That's like saying the Jim Crow laws may well have had racial implications.  But that does not mean that all people that support Jim Crow laws were in favor of those racial policies.  In fact that does not mean that one single person supporting Jim Crow laws is in favor of those racial policies.

And that kind of claim would have been downright laughable.

Many making that kind of claim about the immigration law today quite innocently and naively believe that the typical Mexican wanting to immigrate to the US for economic reasons might not be able to do so immediately, but certainly would be able to comply with all of the rules and make it here within a matter of a few months, or less, from the date of starting the process to the time they are allowed to legally enter the US.

And they are wrong.

By the way, where did you find the number of 140,000 legal immigrants?  I have been unable to verify it.

From Atlantic Magazine, I believe, in an article on economic policy and things the author thought other nations were doing "right."  Here it is -- http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/the-8-best-innovation-ideas-from-around-the-world/248695/  But a better source would be the US code itself, 8 U.S.C. 1151(c), which you will find here -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001151----000-.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 26, 2011, 10:18:17 am
You need to learn to read more carefully also.  I didn't say that there wasn't a single person in the country that was racist.  I said that your "evidence" does not prove that a single person in the country is racist.

As far as your immigration numbers are concerned, I posted a government report to congress that said that over one million people were granted a permanent vise in the year 2002 alone.  And the largest single nationality receiving those visas were from mexico, which, I understand, has a fairly large population that could be considered Latino.  In fact, there were three times more permanent visas issued to Mexicans that there were to the second group, which was the country of India, or the third group, which was the country of China.

It would seem that if the policies are racist, they are policies that FAVOR Latinos, rather than discriminate against them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 26, 2011, 10:22:14 am
By the way, If you read your own articles, you must have skipped over the part that said that in 2010, the United States welcomed 1,042,625 immigrants. 

Even in JesMath, this is somewhat higher than 140,000.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 26, 2011, 01:05:33 pm
dave, the total number is made up largely of family reunifications and refugee status immigrants.  Those coming here for economic reasons are limited to 140,000.

As to your report on the 2002 figures, that still does not address the number who wanted to come to the US and were actually willing to make the effort to do so.  That number is far more lopsided with Hispanics than are the number who were given permanent Visas.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 26, 2011, 10:36:43 pm
I have no doubt that there are a lot of people in foreign lands that would love to come to the US.  That is why we have quotas.  I don't understand your point.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 28, 2011, 02:23:23 pm
It wasn't social spending that got Greece in trouble or Spain.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 28, 2011, 02:30:26 pm
I give up.  What was it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2011, 02:42:27 pm
I have no doubt that there are a lot of people in foreign lands that would love to come to the US.  That is why we have quotas.  I don't understand your point.

It makes no more sense to have a quota on those who can enter the nation by crossing the borders than it does to have a quota on those who can enter the nation by being born.  In many ways it actually makes less sense, since those who immigrate here are generally adults and are productive almost immediately after coming here.  Children cost both their parents, and society, a great deal before they begin to earn their keep.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 28, 2011, 02:50:30 pm
It would be extremely foolish at this point to allow as many people in the world to come to the US as want to come.  The United States is a nation that is responsible for it's people, and there are not enough resources or space to maintain an unlimited population.  When the US was underpopulated, it made sense to encourage immigration.  Now, it is time to stop it.  There is no significant nation on earth that allows unlimited immigration, even among the nations where no one wants to go.

Most of those that want to immigrate are of child bearing years.  Not only does unlimited immigration create an unsustainable population of adults, but also increases the children that, as you say, do not earn their keep.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2011, 04:00:11 pm
dave, jus
The United States is a nation that is responsible for it's people....

It is?

How?  Responsible for feeding and clothing them?  I don't think so.


It would be extremely foolish at this point to allow as many people in the world to come to the US as want to come.

Why?  And why would it be less responsible to allow people to come here than it would be to allow them to be born here?

The reality is that as the population ages, we will have little choice but to seriously increase the immigration we allow.  We will simply not have the working age population needed.

Unfortunately by that time we may no longer be quite as attractive a destination for folks to immigrate to.

and there are not enough resources or space to maintain an unlimited population.

Free and motivated people are the most valuable resource a nation can have.  Population tends to reach equalibrium levels on their own.  Government does no better job determining what the "right" level of population we should have than it does determining what the wage rate should be or how much speech we should be allowed to exercise.

Most of the arguments you offer are identical to those offered in the late 1800's when the nation decided it needed to keep you the Yellow Menace, or in the 1840's when we were being "taken over" by the Irish, or from 1900-1925 when all of those disgusting Italians were coming here, or in the late 1940's when there simply was no way we as a nation were going to be able to preserve our own identity when all of those DP's were coming over from Europe.

There is no significant nation on earth that allows unlimited immigration, even among the nations where no one wants to go.

And in 1787 there was also no significant nation on earth that allowed for true elected government to the degree established in the U.S.  The period when we did allow true unlimited immigration, however, certainly did not seem to hurt us.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 28, 2011, 04:57:18 pm
The nation is responsible for defending the border.

The Constitution allows the government to defend the borders.  It does not allow the government to prevent births.  And to prevent even more silly comments, it also prevents the government from killing it's own people in order to keep the population down.

If these arguments were advanced in the 1880s, that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are appropriate today.  And the fact that you attribute their motivation to worry about the "Yellow Menace" does not make it so.  And even if it WAS so, that has no impact on the situation today.

You are quick to assign motivations to people that you know nothing about, and then dismiss the arguments and beliefs based upon your imagined motivations, rather than the facts themselves.

In the last analysis, any country, including ours, has the right to regulate immigration.  There is nothing either right or wrong in their decision, what ever it may be.  The correct answer at any point in time is the desires of the citizens.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 28, 2011, 07:14:21 pm
Bill Sharp posted this on the Bear's board.  It concerns the latest Climategate Emails.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/284137
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 28, 2011, 09:56:23 pm
So does this about the made up oil infused denial of climate change.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/history-of-climategate (http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/history-of-climategate)

--->Attention fox news moron<---

Its better to read it first before we all see posts about the Norsk Sagas, again...



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 28, 2011, 10:24:01 pm
I notice that you don't address the question of just how the federal government is "responsible for its people."  Probably a good idea to let that one go.

The nation is responsible for defending the border.  The Constitution allows the government to defend the borders.  It does not allow the government to prevent births.  And to prevent even more silly comments, it also prevents the government from killing it's own people in order to keep the population down.

It is widely accepted that the government can subsidize children by granting tax credits to essentially encourage births.  If that is permissible, there is no reason the federal government could not similarly impose a tax on having children, and no reason it could not impose a tax sufficiently large enough to significantly discourage people from having children.



If these arguments were advanced in the 1880s, that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are appropriate today.  And the fact that you attribute their motivation to worry about the "Yellow Menace" does not make it so.  And even if it WAS so, that has no impact on the situation today.

The "Yellow Menace" concern is not just mine.  Read some history.  Look up the Congressional Record regarding the debates on the issue.  As to whether the arguments in the past have any relevance to the issue today, when the former arguments are often startlingly similar to the past arguments, it would seem that the past arguments are quite relevant.


You are quick to assign motivations to people that you know nothing about, and then dismiss the arguments and beliefs based upon your imagined motivations, rather than the facts themselves.

If you offered anything resembling facts, I would be happy to address them.  You offer conjecture about terrible things which will happen unless we severely restrict immigration.  Those predictions are remarkably like past predictions, which were voiced quite often by people who made no pretense about not being bigots..... not that there's anything wrong with that.



In the last analysis, any country, including ours, has the right to regulate immigration.

No one has ever suggested otherwise, but having the "right" to do so does not mean it is good policy to do so.  I want more people here who are eager to be in the US and wanting and sincerely appreciating its freedoms and wanting to work.  Those are the people trying to immigrate here.  I wish we could get rid of many Americans who were born here who lack those traits.


There is nothing either right or wrong in their decision, what ever it may be.

Whether something is "right or wrong" as you use the phrase is a subjective decision and not objective.  You and I appear to disagree on it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 28, 2011, 10:55:50 pm
I haven't conjectured any bad things happening.  I don't want unlimited immigration because I am not interested in going out of my way to populate the country.  I am quite content with it as it is.  If the majority of elected officials want to tax people that have children, that is fine with me.  I wouldn't vote for it, but it wouldn't break my heart.

It would seem to me to be obvious to me that the Federal Government is responsible to the people for carrying out it's Constitutional mandates as well as it's laws enacted by Congress within it's authority.  I didn't know you needed that simple a civics lesson.

As you say, the Federal Government has the right to regulate immigration.  You think they should allow unlimited immigration.  I don't think so.  You and I certainly disagree on the subject.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 29, 2011, 07:16:44 am
I haven't conjectured any bad things happening.

But you have.  You have in very recent posts said that the United States did not have either the resources or the space to accommodate all those who would immigrate here if we had open immigration. 


It would be extremely foolish at this point to allow as many people in the world to come to the US as want to come.... there are not enough resources or space to maintain an unlimited population....  (I)mmigration create(s) an unsustainable population....

That is conjecture.  Other times you have written that you believe we should have a national language in order to help prevent immigrant groups from Balkanizing the nation and weakening our national identity.  That is also conjecture.  I believe, though I may be wrong, that you have also at times joined with those who argue that immigrants result in a general decline in wage rates, and that is also conjecture.


I don't want unlimited immigration because I am not interested in going out of my way to populate the country.

Allowing people to move to the U.S. does not require YOU to go out of your way.  It does not have you helping them move.


It would seem to me to be obvious to me that the Federal Government is responsible to the people...

I never have suggested that the Federal Government is not responsible TO the people.  I challenged your statement that the Federal Government is responsible FOR the people.  While "to" and "for" are both prepositions, they mean rather different things.  I didn't know that you needed a simple English lesson.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Ray on November 29, 2011, 08:29:01 am
But you have.  You have in very recent posts said that the United States did not have either the resources or the space to accommodate all those who would immigrate here if we had open immigration. 


That is conjecture.  Other times you have written that you believe we should have a national language in order to help prevent immigrant groups from Balkanizing the nation and weakening our national identity.  That is also conjecture.  I believe, though I may be wrong, that you have also at times joined with those who argue that immigrants result in a general decline in wage rates, and that is also conjecture.


Allowing people to move to the U.S. does not require YOU to go out of your way.  It does not have you helping them move.


I never have suggested that the Federal Government is not responsible TO the people.  I challenged your statement that the Federal Government is responsible FOR the people.  While "to" and "for" are both prepositions, they mean rather different things.  I didn't know that you needed a simple English lesson.

You don't think 100-200 million folks heading to the u.s. wouldn't cause it's citizens to have to go out of their way to accommodate the immigrants or put a strain on resources?  You can't tell me there aren't a lot of poor nations where the whole nation would want to up and move. 

Yes, that's a lot of assuming that that many people would come, but no more fact twisting than you are doing, and to be honest, wouldn't surprise me if it really was that many....lot of really poor nations out there.

and yes, i realize your going to say just cuz they want to come doesn't mean they have ability, etc...but that doesn't preclude the point we couldn't support a 50% increase in the population.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 29, 2011, 10:05:26 am
You don't think 100-200 million folks heading to the u.s. wouldn't cause it's citizens to have to go out of their way to accommodate the immigrants or put a strain on resources?

I don't recall ever expressing an opinion on that one way or the other, despite the fact that the wording of your question rather clearly implies that I have.


You can't tell me there aren't a lot of poor nations where the whole nation would want to up and move.

Many attractive cities in the US sometimes seemingly believe they face the same prospect.  When I lived in San Diego, and later again when I lived in Tucson, locals quite regularly were concerned about  "too many" people moving there, and "put(ing) a strain on resources," and changing the communities in ways the locals did not want, and driving up housing costs, etc.  Fortunately the courts generally struck down some of their more blatant efforts to prevent immigration from other cities and states in the US to their own, and the fears expressed did not come to pass.  Unfortunately the measures which were not struck down in court or defeated politically have tended to make the cost of living in both of those communities higher for everyone there, and have also actually hurt the quality of life.

Just as there is a "market" for the price of apples or tuna or labor, there is also effectively a "market" for where people will live.  Markets always have equalibrium points.  We may not know what they are or when they will be reached, but they are there, and we tend to be much better off if we allow the aggregate of individual decisions to find and set and reach those equalibrium points.

Yes, that's a lot of assuming that that many people would come, but no more fact twisting than you are doing....

I trust you are aware that assumptions and "fact twisting" are rather different things.  Now, can you please direct me to the "facts" which you believe I have "twisted" in this discussion and then tell me know I have done so?


and yes, i realize your going to say just cuz they want to come doesn't mean they have ability, etc...

Nope.  Not going to say that at all.

but that doesn't preclude the point we couldn't support a 50% increase in the population.

Actually, we can, and we likely will.  Population density in the United States is actually rather low for a major industrialized nation.  Look at the nation's population growth.  We grew 22.5% in population from 1990 to 2010, and we are better off today (despite the recession) than we were then.  Our population today is more than 50% greater than it was in 1970, and we are better off today than we were in 1970.  In fact we have increased our population by 50% every 20 to 30 years ever since about 1855 (and it was growing even more rapidly before that), and we have only continued to become stronger, wealthier, more productive and have a better standard of living.

Historically there has actually been a rather strong relationship between economic growth and immigration (not just in the US, but in much the world).  Part of that likely is because immigration has been attracted by economic growth, but another very large part of that is that immigration has in fact fueled economic growth.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 29, 2011, 10:25:32 am
Population density is rather low in the US rather than the other industrial nations.  That is why I want to limit immigration.  I like it the way it is.

Do you really think that if you moved 4 billion people into the US, that nothing bad would result?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 29, 2011, 11:41:13 am
Population density is rather low in the US rather than the other industrial nations.  That is why I want to limit immigration.  I like it the way it is.

Things change.  Get used to it.  Did you like things appreciably more in 1970, BECAUSE OF POPULATION DENSITY?  The nation has increased its population by 50% since then.


Do you really think that if you moved 4 billion people into the US, that nothing bad would result?

I would also agree that if all land in the US were flooded and was 50 feet underwater, something bad would result.  And that if anti-personnel mines were planted over the US, something bad would happen.

Of course, no one has been talking about any of those happening, nor is there any realistic prospect that any of them would, but what the heck, that appears not to be a factor limiting what you consider.

dave, you have every right to keep anyone off of YOUR property that you want to keep off.  And, despite current federal law, I believe you should have every right to refuse to hire or associate with whomever you decide to, and for whatever reason.

That does not mean you have a moral right to prevent ME from hiring anyone I might wish, or allowing them to buy or live on MY property.

While we as a nation are able to control our borders, that does not mean that you, or anyone else, either individually or collectively, should have the moral right to prevent others from coming into this nation simply because we like in the way that it is and do not want it to change.... usually because we are afraid of change.

I commented before about the anti-growth sentiment which I had seen in San Diego and in Tucson (and which at different times has been seen in many other communities in the US).  Their desire to keep folks from moving there because they "like it the way it is," is no different from your desire to prevent immigration to the US because you like it the way it is.

And while I agree that the federal government has the legal right to exclude anyone and everyone from immigrating to this country, I see no moral right to do so, and have heard no arguments supporting it which do not appear either offensive or misguided.

We as a nation would benefit greatly from allowing to immigrate here as many people who want to take advantage of the opportunities as are willing to come, and to make a commitment to remain and become part of this nation.  I do not like the idea of temporary work permits, or permanent Visa which allow a person to remain here indefinitely, without even making a commitment to the nation, but for those who want to be here and remain, so long as they do not meet certain narrow exclusionary criteria, I say like the announcer on "The Price Is Right" --- Come on down!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 29, 2011, 01:21:53 pm
Some things change.  Some things do not change.  I like the population level roughly where it is now, that I have no wish to have unlimited immigration in this country.  If enough voters agree with me that we elect a government that limits immigration, great.

If enough people agree with you that we elect a government that allows unlimited immigration, so be it.

As far as moral rights are concerned, no one had the moral right to move to another country.  And just as I have the moral, as well as legal right to preclude anyone from living on my property, so a country has a moral, as well as a legal right to decide whether to allow immigration, and if so, how much.  Whatever is decided is not, in itself, moral.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 29, 2011, 04:28:59 pm
As far as moral rights are concerned, no one had the moral right to move to another country.

Instead of arguing the issue, let's back up and broaden it a bit.

What moral rights do you believe we do have, simply by virtue of our existence?

I would include the freedom to move, not only leaving where they might happen to live, but also moving to another location, so long as they can find a place to live there.  I would include that right because I believe a person should be free to do whatever he (or she) wishes so long as it does not directly interfere with the freedom of another person.

You apparently would not.

So what moral rights do you believe we do have, simply by virtue of our existence, and, without asking you to prepare an exhaustive list, or even significantly exemplary list, how would you go about deciding whether one right or another should be considered to exist?

(One of the grievances leading many of the colonists to join in support of the Revolution was the decision of King George to prohibit expansion west of the Appalachians -- a freedom of migration issue: He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands..)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 29, 2011, 04:47:38 pm
I would not include the right to move to a country that has a law against my moving to that country.  Everyone certainly has the moral right to move to a place that will accept you.  But no one has the moral  right to move to a country that will not accept them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 29, 2011, 05:28:24 pm
dave, you are focusing on the specific.  Try to move out to the general.  What general principles or guidelines would you believe should be considered in determining whether a natural or moral right to do something exists?

As I pointed out, the founding fathers seemed to believe that included moving into a territory where the nation expressly prohibited that migration.  (It was not just that the Cherokee and Chocktaw who treated Daniel Boone and company as intruders, King George also expressly prohibited the colonists from moving west of the Appalachians.  It truly was a freedom which was central to the Revolution, and for those who had moved west of the Appalachians, or wanted to join them, it was probably the most important reason, and in their minds, it was a "natural right.")
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 29, 2011, 06:23:59 pm
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/obamas-job-approval-drops-below-carters
Obama's Job Approval Drops Below Carter's

November 29, 2011 RSS Feed  Print
President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.

Since March, Obama's job approval rating has hovered above Carter's, considered among the 20th century's worst presidents, but today Obama's punctured Carter's dismal job approval line. On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama's job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter's 51 percent.

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter's ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

According to Gallup, here are the job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:

-- Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.

-- Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.

-- Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.

-- Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.

-- Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.

-- George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.

-- Bill Clinton: 51 percent.

-- George W. Bush: 55 percent.

What's more, Gallup finds that Obama's overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama's team is using as a model.

[Vote now: Will Obama be a one-term president?]

Many pundits believe that job approval ratings are the key number to look at when determining if a president will win re-election. Generally, they feel that a president should be higher than 47 percent to win re-election.

Obama's troubles have revived talk in Democratic circles that Vice President Joe Biden should be replaced by the politically popular Hillary Clinton. She plans to leave as secretary of state at the end of Obama's term no matter what happens in the re-election.

A key Democratic source said that Clinton could help revive the Democratic base and bring in Clinton backers, with whom the administration has had a cool relationship. Clinton has repeatedly rejected talk of her swapping roles with Biden, but Democratic operatives eager to keep the president in office believe that she would be the key to winning educated white voters and liberals upset with the administration's actions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 29, 2011, 06:36:28 pm
dave, you are focusing on the specific.  Try to move out to the general.  What general principles or guidelines would you believe should be considered in determining whether a natural or moral right to do something exists?

As I pointed out, the founding fathers seemed to believe that included moving into a territory where the nation expressly prohibited that migration.  (It was not just that the Cherokee and Chocktaw who treated Daniel Boone and company as intruders, King George also expressly prohibited the colonists from moving west of the Appalachians.  It truly was a freedom which was central to the Revolution, and for those who had moved west of the Appalachians, or wanted to join them, it was probably the most important reason, and in their minds, it was a "natural right.")

Don't be silly.  The Americans has no moral right to move into the Indian's territory.  Some they gained the legal right to through purchase and some they gained the legal right to through conquest.  Moral rights had nothing to do with it.  The fact that they justified it by claiming some sort of moral right does not mean that such a moral right existed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 29, 2011, 08:15:02 pm
dave, you are still focusing on the specific.

Try to move out to the general.  What general principles or guidelines would you believe should be considered in determining whether a natural or moral right to do something exists?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 29, 2011, 09:05:14 pm
I will play you game.  Obviously, you have given it consideration.  What general principles or guidelines would YOU believe should be considered in determining whether a natural or moral right to do something exists?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 30, 2011, 05:05:08 am
dave, I have already answered the question.  I answered it at the same time I posed it to you.

I would include the freedom to move, not only leaving where they might happen to live, but also moving to another location, so long as they can find a place to live there.  I would include that right because I believe a person should be free to do whatever he (or she) wishes so long as it does not directly interfere with the freedom of another person.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 30, 2011, 05:26:30 am
Nice message.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE30TH6Y7cI&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE30TH6Y7cI&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 30, 2011, 10:35:26 am
I thought I had already dealt with that.  I don't accept the concept of "natural rights", but even if I did, I do not believe that they trump another subclass of those rights, which would be property rights.  A nation is the property of it's citizens, and just as I can tell you that you can not use or enjoy MY property without my permission, a nation can tell non-citizens that they can not use or enjoy IT'S property without the permission of it's government.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 30, 2011, 01:00:23 pm
dave, I am not suggesting that property rights are in any way inferior.  You are.  Your position is that I should not be allowed to determine who will be on my property.  Nations exist to protect the property rights, personal liberties, and security of their citizens.  The idea that "a nation is the property of it's citizens" seems strange, particularly when a non-citizen can in fact buy and own property in the nation, which you then believe should be empowered to prevent the non-citizen owner from occupying.  But if you do not accept the concept of "natural rights," would that mean that if a state eliminated its statutory prohibition against murder that you would believe that it would be acceptable to commit murder in that state?

My memory is that you oppose abortion.  If you do not "accept the concept of 'natural rights,'" on what basis do you oppose abortion?  With your perspective on natural rights, it would seem that if a state legalizes abortion (or the Supreme Court has invalidated efforts to criminalize it), that should end the question -- abortion would have been determined to be acceptable and in fact a woman's "right," under the law.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 30, 2011, 01:32:15 pm
If a state eliminated its statutory prohibition against murder, then it would be LEGALLY acceptable to commit murder in that state.  It would not be MORALLY acceptable, but that is another issue.  My options, if I were in favor of a law prohibiting murder, would be to convince a majority of the citizens to elect a new government that would pass laws that coincide with my beliefs, or to get enough people on my side to overthrow the current government and, as new leader, pass a law against murder.  Or failing that, to protest legally against the law, as many do who believe that the killing of unborn children should be considered to be murder.

All of the above, of course, assumes that by "state", you mean nation.  If you are referring to one of the United States, then the national constitution would have to be taken into consideration.

A nation can make the decision to allow foreigners to own land in their country.  If it does, it does not compromise it's authority to prevent non citizens from immigrating into the country.  A person living in Mexico can own property in the US without having the right to enter the country without permission.  Any nation has the right to deny or regulate immigration across it's borders.

As I said above, something, such as abortion, can be morally wrong, but legally acceptable.  I, as an individual against abortion, do not have the right to prevent someone else from having an abortion as long as the law permits it.  I can try to talk them out of it.  I can express my revulsion in their action afterwards.  But I do not have the right to prevent it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 30, 2011, 07:42:28 pm
If a state eliminated its statutory prohibition against murder, then it would be LEGALLY acceptable to commit murder in that state.

Interesting.  In your view human beings to not have a natural right to life, or to continue living without having the state or another person end that life, even for purely arbitrary or downright venal reasons.


All of the above, of course, assumes that by "state", you mean nation.  If you are referring to one of the United States, then the national constitution would have to be taken into consideration.

No.  I meant state, as in one of the 50.  Not sure how the national constitution would come into consideration.  Nowhere in it is there any language either empowering or requiring the federal government to prevent a state from legalizing murder. 
 


A nation can make the decision to allow foreigners to own land in their country.  If it does, it does not compromise it's authority to prevent non citizens from immigrating into the country.  A person living in Mexico can own property in the US without having the right to enter the country without permission.  Any nation has the right to deny or regulate immigration across it's borders.

You simply make the bald assertions in the last paragraph without anything to support them, and ignoring the fact that the founders did not seem to agree.  My positions all grow out of my very simple belief that it is wrong to prevent individuals from entering into consensual transactions and that it is wrong to forcibly prevent a person from doing anything with either their person or their property unless that action directly injures another.  Your position is based on.... what, exactly?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 30, 2011, 09:00:38 pm
My position is that everyone had the moral right to life.  But like every right, it can be affected by other rights, such as the right of the state to punish capital offenders, the right to self defense, the right to kill in war when necessary.

Other rights, are affected by other rights, such as your right to go wherever you want to is affected by my right to keep you off my property, or your right to go wherever you want to is affected by the prohibition to going into a foreign country.

Moral rights become legal rights when codified into law, and can be modified by law.  I have the moral right to marry anyone I want to marry.  The law can prevent me from marrying someone who is already married.  Or is my niece.  Or is 12 years old.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 04, 2011, 07:44:23 am
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/02/in_iowa_the_ron_paul_factor_could_loom_large_112249.html

In Iowa, the "Ron Paul Factor" Could Loom Large
By Scott Conroy - December 2, 2011


Ron Paul has long been the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican presidential field: He just can't seem to get any respect.

Despite polling consistently within the top three or four candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, the libertarian-leaning congressman has not convinced most of the media and the other campaigns that he can reach beyond a dedicated group of supporters and become a serious threat to win the nomination.


 
But with a month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Paul is leaving an increasingly significant mark on the race.

On Wednesday, his campaign released a 2˝-minute Web ad titled "Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy," which juxtaposed media commentary and Gingrich’s own words to eviscerate the former House speaker.

In a campaign that has seen relatively few hard-hitting attack ads, Paul’s takedown of the rising GOP front-runner was a potent reminder of Gingrich’s myriad vulnerabilities and earned Paul admiration for its effectiveness.

“Wow Ron Paul. That is really well produced,” tweeted Erick Erickson of the influential RedState.com. “I'm impressed.” It was a reaction echoed by others who have not been Paul supporters.

At a New Hampshire campaign stop on Thursday, Paul demonstrated that he is willing to back up the tough ad with his own words: Gingrich is “a flip-flopper, so he can hardly be the alternative to Mitt Romney,” he said, according to NBC News.

Paul’s sharpened attacks seem designed primarily to cut into Gingrich’s lead in the nation’s first voting state of Iowa -- where Paul faces a do-or-die scenario.

And the Texas congressman’s prospects there indeed appear to be better, in many respects, than may be the case elsewhere: In a Bloomberg poll conducted last month, Paul was in a statistical three-way tie for the Hawkeye State lead.

He has slipped back in two subsequent polls, but Paul does enjoy one of the best organizations in the state -- which could prove particularly potent against competitors whose Iowa infrastructures are far less extensive than what has been seen in previous election cycles.

“Looking at our grass-roots activists that work really hard and door-knock and make calls, I feel pretty good about where we are,” said Paul’s Iowa vice chairman, A.J. Spiker. “There’s a consistent message, and it’s less government, and that’s what the Republican Party is all about. And I’m not sure another candidate embodies that more than Ron Paul.”

Among longtime observers of Iowa politics, there remains considerable concern, privately expressed, that Paul might actually win the caucuses -- a result that could make the state irrelevant in future cycles.

But Paul’s nonconformist views on foreign policy and the still-engrained perception that he is unelectable threaten to hold him back, and his marginal media savvy is another potential drawback. Pressed on why he wanted to be president last month, for example, Paul refused to answer the question.

“I think he has reached his ceiling,” said veteran Iowa Republican fundraiser Becky Beach. “I think he’ll definitely have his core of extremely committed people, but I don’t think people here think he has a real chance of going on and being the nominee and beating Obama.”

Even if he does not win, Paul’s impact on the outcome in Iowa will almost certainly be substantial, despite his reputation for attracting voters who would not otherwise take part in the process.

Though he had shown a willingness to attack other GOP opponents before his broadside against Gingrich, Paul has more or less left Mitt Romney alone. If the race in Iowa remains tight, Paul could become an accidental Romney ally by cutting into Gingrich’s support.

But in a race that has seen as many shifting variables as this one, Paul retains the potential to surprise everyone -- especially if Iowa’s particularly inclement weather is a factor on caucus night.

“If there is a snowstorm, Paul wins,” said one state Republican insider.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 05, 2011, 04:28:05 pm
It's too bad Ron Paul has no chance in the primary race....

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/04/9202435-gingrich-takes-control-in-iowa

Measuring Obama
Turning to the general election in Iowa and New Hampshire, President Barack Obama’s approval rating remains underwater in both states.
Forty-three percent of registered voters in Iowa approve of his job performance, which is up one point from October. In New Hampshire, 40 percent of registered voters approve of his job performance, up two points.
Yet -- with one exception -- he leads all GOP challengers in hypothetical match-ups in the Hawkeye State. He’s ahead of Romney by seven points among registered voters (46 percent to 39 percent), Gingrich by 10 points (47 percent to 37 percent) and Perry by 11 points (48 percent to 37 percent).
The one exception: Paul ties him at 42 percent for each.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 06, 2011, 09:30:49 pm
jes....ron could not win even if he was the last person in the race....both parties.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on December 08, 2011, 07:47:45 am
that doesn't change the fact that he would be better than the POS currently in office...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 08, 2011, 01:33:16 pm
Big news this week, with the Department of Labor reporting 381,000 initial unemployment claims. That's a drop of 23,000 from last week's revised figure of 404,000, and the less volatile four-week moving average drops by 3,000 to 393,250.

dave

Your talking about the republic leadership and I agree.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on December 08, 2011, 02:43:42 pm
So the nation is adding a few jobs before Christmas?  Wow that must be a first.  Good thing for the anointed one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on December 12, 2011, 04:27:25 pm
Obama to Iran: "Can we have our drone back?"

Iran to Obama: "Finders keepers, losers weepers."

He should have said, "please?"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2011, 05:53:00 pm
C'mon, if Iran lost a spy plane over the US, I'm sure Obama would return it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 12, 2011, 06:40:52 pm
I can't believe that there are any out there that thought that Iran would return the Plane.  They can sell it to the Chinese for billions of dollars.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2011, 08:24:39 pm
I can't believe that there are any out there that thought that Iran would return the Plane.  They can sell it to the Chinese for billions of dollars.

No one thought  Iran would.

Obama was reportedly advised by the military as soon as it went down and he was given the option of having it destroyed on the ground.... and he instead decided to ask Iran to give it back.

He might as well have delivered the thing to Iran for their inspection, reverse engineering, and sale to China.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2011, 08:27:02 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-ron-paul/2011/12/07/gIQAu3vOiO_story.html

Five myths about Ron Paul

By Nick Gillespie, Published: December 9

Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates. The 12-term Texas congressman ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket back in 1988 and was widely seen as a sideshow in 2008, despite finishing third in the GOP field behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Why, despite a small but devoted set of supporters, does this 76-year-old obstetrician turned politician routinely get no respect from the media and GOP operatives? Let’s take a look at what “Dr. No” — a nickname grounded in his medical career and his penchant for voting against any bill increasing the size of government — really stands for.

1. Ron Paul is not a “top-tier” candidate.

At some point in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the mainstream media became more obsessed than usual with designating GOP hopefuls as “top-tier” candidates, meaning “people we want to talk about because we find them interesting or funny or scary.” Or more plainly: “anybody but Ron Paul.”

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has been accorded top-tier status from the start, but otherwise it’s been a rogues’ gallery. As their numbers soared, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and pizza magnate Herman Cain enjoyed stints in the top tier, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich is now ensconced in that blessed circle.

Back in August, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) was designated “top tier” afterwinning Iowa’s Ames Straw Poll.Paul was not, despite losing to her by only about 150 votes. And when Paul won the presidential straw poll of about 2,000 attendees at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit in Washington in October, the contest’s organizer pronounced him “an outlier in this poll.”

Yet Paul is doing increasingly well in national and state-level polls. He’s running in second place in Iowa ahead of the Jan. 3 caucuses and third in the New Hampshire primary — the first two contests for the GOP nomination. And now that Cain has dropped out, Paul’s stock is likely to keep climbing. The congressman is no less a top-tier candidate than anyone else in the race.

2. Ron Paul is a doctrinaire libertarian.

Yes, he once ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket and was accuratelydescribed by New York Times columnist Gail Collins last month as against “gun control, the death penalty, the C.I.A., the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag-burners, hate crime legislation, foreign aid, the military draft under any circumstances, campaign finance reform, the war on drugs,the war on terror and the war on ****.” But Paul parts company with many libertarians on many issues.

These include immigration, where he favors ending birthright citizenship and reducing the number of newcomers until the welfare state is dismantled. Paul says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but in Congress in 2005, 2007, 2009 and this year he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at conception.

In theory he supports free-trade agreements, but he votes against them, dismissing them as “managed trade.” He’s known for adding earmarks to spending bills he votes against, thus bringing home pork while maintaining his “Dr. No” credentials. As a result, says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute, Paul is “an imperfect messenger” for libertarians’ small-government gospel.

3. Ron Paul’s call to “end the Fed” is crazy.

Paul’s 2009 “End the Fed” manifesto pretty much gives away the plot in the title. But the book sold well and drew respectful notices not just from folk singer Arlo Guthrie and actor Vince Vaughn, but also from the likes of media magnate and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes. “History,” Forbes wrote in a review of Paul’s book, “will judge that Paul had it right when it came to the Fed and its often misbegotten monetary policies.” David Stockman, the former Republican congressman and Reagan budget director, has said that “our monetary system is out of control” and that Paul is the “one guy who understands it.”

Far more important is Paul’s bill to audit the Fed, which has been introduced three years in a row and hasn’t passed, but had more than 300 co-sponsors in the House in 2009. Paulintroduced a new version in January that has 195 co-sponsors drawn from both parties. That sustained interest and the ongoing controversy over the Fed’s role in bank bailouts — and the fact that both the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street movement have cast a gimlet eye on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke — strongly suggest that auditing the nation’s central bank is an idea whose time has come.

4. Ron Paul is anti-military.

Unlike his fellow, er, top-tier candidates Gingrich and Romney, Paul served his country in uniform, as an Air Force captain. However, his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his insistence thatmilitary spending can be cut without endangering U.S. lives, have led some to conclude that his foreign policy non-interventionism equals unilateral disarmament.

While Pentagon brass might oppose his defense cuts, troops seem to like what he is saying. According to his campaign’s analysis of Federal Election Commission reports from the third quarter of this year, Paul has raised more money from active military personnel than all other GOP competitors combined, and even more than President Obama.

Paul, who has said that “we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home,” wants to radically change defense policy and withdraw troops from war zones and bases around the world. He is clearly against the military-industrial complex, but if soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are opening their wallets to support his White House bid, he can’t accurately be branded “anti-military.”

5. Ron Paul has strong youth support because he wants to legalize drugs.

A medical doctor by training and a grandfather, Paul leaves no doubt as to whether drugs — and cigarettes and trans fat, for that matter — should be legal. “Why shouldn’t you have free decisions on what you eat, drink, smoke and put into your own body?” he told an audience of 1,000 University of Iowa students in October. Yet the devout Christian is no libertine, telling the same crowd, “You also have to assume responsibility for any bad choices you make, and you can’t go to your neighbor or to your government to bail yourselves out.”

Paul’s popularity among younger voters — he’s called a “rock star” on the college circuit — stems from the idealism of his politics. Kids rally behind his faith in the future, belief in the individual and confidence in bottom-up decision-making. He may look like Timothy Leary, the countercultural guru who famously held a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Paul’s 1988 presidential bid, but he’s not talking about turning on, tuning in and dropping out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 13, 2011, 08:56:29 am
Quote
Obama was reportedly advised by the military as soon as it went down and he was given the option of having it destroyed on the ground.... and he instead decided to ask Iran to give it back.

Ya sure.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 13, 2011, 11:18:39 am
Sorry, Oddo.  That was reported even by your liberal media.

If you don't read the conservative media, and you don't read the liberal media, what does that leave?  Comic books?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 13, 2011, 11:55:25 am
I have to admit that for the most part, I think Obama has done a good job on foreign affairs and national security. 

That being said, "Iran, please let us have our spy planes back?"  That's pretty weak.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 13, 2011, 02:21:40 pm
(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/376483_10150466095628211_501883210_8420241_209446890_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 13, 2011, 02:58:25 pm
Sure the Liberal Media reported it...so it must be easy to source.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 13, 2011, 03:03:33 pm
Quick show of hands...who wants to go to war with Iran over the drone. For grandpa's in here you can vote to send the grandson.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on December 13, 2011, 03:30:51 pm
How about sending Jes as a special envoy/ negotiator to go over to Iran and secure the return of our United States Government Property.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 13, 2011, 03:40:20 pm
Obama excuse for not destroying the plane was almost as good as him asking Iran to return it.

The reason he gave was that destroying the drone could be considered an act of war.... as if the drone itself was a gesture of affection.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 13, 2011, 06:24:16 pm
Jes citing rush limpthought as a source on the Obama drone story is pure comedy. Come on professor clean shaven...

Really

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on December 13, 2011, 06:32:49 pm
Wouldn't Jes' source of Jes' opinion be, uh, Jes?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 13, 2011, 10:37:56 pm
otto, please direct me to ANYone I cited as a source.

But if you really want one, you could have watched CBS evening news tonight with Chris Pelli.  They reported the same thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 14, 2011, 07:59:46 am
I hope Mitt Romney didn't work too hard for the Christine O'Donnell endorsement.

“That’s one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind,” O’Donnell said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70418.html



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2011, 08:30:03 am
Paul is now only one point behind Gingrich in Iowa, is surging, and a higher percentage of Iowa Republicans have a favorable opinion of him than any other Republican candidate there.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1213925.pdf

The Public Policy Polling folks who conducted the poll also concluded that, "There are a lot of parallels between Paul's strength in Iowa and Barack Obama's in 2008."

It would be interesting to see how the networks would report the results if Paul wins in Iowa.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 14, 2011, 08:50:30 am
It would be interesting to see how the networks would report the results if Paul wins in Iowa.

Probably as a win for Romney.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 16, 2011, 09:17:36 am
Paul stated, twice, that he was to the left of Obama on Iran last night.

In a GOP debate.

After last night, I really don't know who will win. Gingrich got bloodied by Bachmann (as did Paul) and Chris Wallace was a one-man wrecking crew on Romney.
Santorum had a good debate but no memorable lines. He did throw a gut punch at Romney on gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Huntsman is irrelevant, so I suppose I know he won't win.
Perry invoked the power of Tebow...there's just no telling if it will rub off...

Had Paul not self-destructed on foreign policy again, I think it would have been all his in Iowa.

Now....I just don't know. Bachmann, Perry and Santorum have all been creeping up. Gingrich is spiraling back down.
Unless social conservatives stop splitting their vote, I think Romney may win it by default. And if that happens, it's over.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on December 16, 2011, 10:32:50 am
Unless social conservatives stop splitting their vote, I think Romney may win it by default. And if that happens, it's over.

Funny...as an independent, I see it completely differently.  If the social conservatives *stop* splitting their vote and get one of the three nominated, that's when it's over.  A candidate needs some independent support to win, and none of them are getting any.  The vast majority of independents have no interest in voting for strict anti-science, anti-gay candidates who would waste their time trying to legislate morality.  And Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry are some of the worst at being anti-science and anti-gay.

Huntsman is the best candidate.  He's the most qualified (has the most relevant experience), has the most appeal to independents/right-leaning Democrats, and would probably beat Obama.  But, as you said, he's (unfortunately) irrelevant.  It's too bad that Republicans see serving as an ambassador under Obama, believing in the decades-old accepted science of evolution, and being willing to let scientists guide the discussion (but not necessarily policy) on climate change as being such weaknesses. 

Romney is the only candidate with a real chance against Obama.  He's the only one other than Huntsman who can get any significant independent/conservative Democrat support.  Well, I guess Paul has his cult of independents...his problem is he's perceived as too crazy to get enough partisan voters. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 16, 2011, 11:04:40 am
Nonsense.  Any of them would beat Obama.  Just ask Jes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 16, 2011, 11:18:08 am
The vast majority of independents have no interest in voting for strict anti-science, anti-gay candidates who would waste their time trying to legislate morality.  And Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry are some of the worst at being anti-science and anti-gay.

How do you define anti-science? It is scientifically proven that life begins at conception. Are you in agreement with science?
That type of straw-man argument is used by elitist academics, often to try and shout down the folks who understand that the science is not in on global warming, in fact, there is much we simply don't know or understand about how our climate and weather is generated.

As for anti-gay, they simply believe marriage is between man and woman. As I recall, Romney stated that himself last night. So we can add Romney to the anti-gay list.

There are reasons to be for or against any of the candidates, but at least use honest reasonings for it.  Labeling someone anti-science is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 16, 2011, 02:33:02 pm
Science on global warming is settled. Any attempt to portray it as not is political bias.

Science has confirmed "life begans at conception"? Really, science issued a press release...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 16, 2011, 03:04:40 pm
Science on global warming is settled. Any attempt to portray it as not is political bias.

Sure it is. And hurricanes could be predicted in December too...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Hurricane+predictors+admit+they+predict+hurricanes/5847032/story.html

Science has confirmed "life begans at conception"? Really, science issued a press release...

Excellent...I love debates. What magical force causes a fertilized embryo to develop into a human being?

Global warming?
A Planned Parenthood certificate of authenticity?
Life?

You decide!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 17, 2011, 08:44:07 pm
The Republicans really got tough with Obama this time.  The new bill absolutely requires Obama to approve the Canadian pipeline.

Of course, they gave him the right to declare it is not in the "National interest"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 18, 2011, 09:57:26 pm
Any thoughts on this jes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-send-us-marshals-to-arrest-uncooperative-judges/2011/12/18/gIQAlYUg2O_blog.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 18, 2011, 10:18:22 pm
Requiring judges to appear before Congress to answer questions (and for what purpose is not really clear to me -- Congress has the power to hold hearings to investigate factual conditions to determine what legislation it should pass and to determine what certain legislation might do, but that is not what Gingrich appears to have in mind, which seems to be allowing the hearings to position Congress as something of a public scold for unpopular judicial decisions) is really NOT the part that should concern folks.

When we have a sitting president contending that he has the Constitutional power to unilaterally order executions of US citizens without judicial proceedings, and without any review of his decision, and Gingrich promises to follow that by openly defying federal court decisions he does not like, including Supreme Court decisions.  If he gets elected, people should be scared.... and most of us seem not to care. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story

And the sad thing is that a great many people, particularly a lot of the Republican primary voters, are likely to eat that sh*t up.

This has the potential of ending very, very badly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on December 18, 2011, 11:21:22 pm
Kim Jong Il has assumed room temperature.

Clearly, this is due to the awesome leadership qualities of our Dear Leader, 0bama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 19, 2011, 07:37:17 am
Watch out.  Those comments might be considered supporting terrorism.  He could send a drone after your a**.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 19, 2011, 09:42:24 am
At the Bears noon presser today, jerry Angelo will claim credit for the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il after it was revealed that the former leader was found lifeless with the remote still in his hand late in the third quarter of the Bears home loss to the Seattle Seahawks 38-14 yesterday.  
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on December 19, 2011, 09:59:50 am
I would think the Pack losing to KC would be more heart attack-inducing...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 19, 2011, 10:31:15 am
The Packers at 13-1 and still owning the first overall seed...team health is more concerning, but not heart attack inducing.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on December 19, 2011, 11:15:02 am
Braun obviously left town with Rodgers' stash...we all know Matthews bogarts his stash...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 19, 2011, 01:16:18 pm
The only stash that's missing/lacking is the ones a WR from the Bears took with him to jail.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 19, 2011, 01:21:07 pm
But he was the Packer's main source.  When they lost him, they immediately lost the game.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 20, 2011, 09:55:16 am
Yuck.  Craig James is running in Texas as a Republican.  Hope he gets torched in the primaries.  What a tool.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 20, 2011, 09:58:26 am
Yuck.  Craig James is running in Texas as a Republican.  Hope he gets torched in the primaries.  What a tool.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that.  He's going to be running against the Lieutenant Governor and a former mayor of Dallas among others.  What the hell makes him think he's more qualified than those guys or makes him think he can beat them?  (Other than getting Mike Leach fired of course.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 20, 2011, 10:00:50 am
Ego.  I'm still upset that ESPN allowed him to stay on the air.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 20, 2011, 11:18:14 am
Who is Craig James?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 20, 2011, 12:52:35 pm
Huge momentum shift today...Paul getting torched by some of the biggest names in Iowa GOP politics now that he's the frontrunner here.

Meanwhile...

Santorum gets Vander Plaats, Hurley endorsements:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/vander-plaats-hurley-for-santorum-108165.html

In the wake of those endorsements, Dem tracking group American Bridge has officially raised Santorum into the top tier of candidates and made him a high priority to track over the 2-week runup to caucus.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/santorum-gets-american-bridge-treatment-108173.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 20, 2011, 12:54:25 pm
Huge momentum shift today...Paul getting torched by some of the biggest names in Iowa GOP politics now that he's the frontrunner here.

Support for Gingrich also sounds like it's collapsing in Iowa.  Nate Silver has him down to only an 8% chance of winning the caucuses.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/iowa
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 21, 2011, 12:45:25 pm
Intrade has ric santorum at 1.2% to win the nomination.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 21, 2011, 01:16:34 pm
Fantastic.  Ron Paul leads in the Iowa Caucus poll:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/ron-paul-iowa-caucus-poll-first
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 21, 2011, 03:16:38 pm
As a Democrat that is good news.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 21, 2011, 06:10:07 pm
Paul would appeal more strongly to independents and to Democrats than any other Republican candidate.  If he gets the nomination, he has a better chance of winning than any other Republican running. 

If Paul gets the nomination, Republicans will vote for him, though much of the pro-war crowd of the party will do so without any enthusiasm whatsoever.  All libertarians (which is 4-5% of the electorate) would support him.  All of those who are serious anti-war activists instead of simply partisans who use use the anti-war issue to attack Republicans would vote for him.  All of the Tea Party crowd would vote for him.  Since Obama is half black, all racists would vote for Paul.  Anyone for who drug legalization is a serious issue (and a majority of voters now believe drugs should be legalized) would vote for him.  And anyone for whom budget deficits are a major issue would likely vote for him.  Young voters absolutely love the guy.

Paul would bring more to the table as the Republican candidate than anyone else.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 22, 2011, 09:01:23 am
Speaking of the racist vote

The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters

By Michael Brendan Dougherty
The Atlantic
Dec 21 2011, 12:12 PM ET 508
 

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:


"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2011, 09:47:02 am
In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context.

Not surprising to see something like that from otto.... Though those comments appeared in Paul's newsletter, he did not write them, he did not edit the newsletter, and he was not aware of the comments until long after they had appeared, AND that he disavowed them.

I'm not sure who created this forum, but they are not really responsible for all of the things which appear here.  And, despite the Atlantic Monthly claim that in a Texas Monthly article in 1996 Paul "accepted responsibility" for those comments, the link the Atlantic Monthly offers to the Texas Monthly "source" includes nothing resembling such a comment from Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 22, 2011, 10:04:43 am
There's one problem with your theory about Paul:

Many Republicans will stay home rather than vote for him. Many of those Democrats you think will vote for him would actually go vote for 4 more years.
He'd get Mondaled.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 22, 2011, 10:11:06 am
The "newsletter" was published by Paul and was published under his name. Paul recieved money from this "newsletter" and claims not to have any knowledge of it's contents?

Sounds like rupert murdoch and son disavowing knowledge of how their company news corp works, dan quayle blaming advisors for the spelling of potato, ron reagan disavowing knowledge of ollie north in the white house basement and john bonerher disavowing knowledge of how to do his job.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 22, 2011, 10:25:16 am
Paul is sounding like a better and better candidate all the time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 22, 2011, 11:09:39 am
Paul talking about his newsletter sounds alot like Dem senators and congressmembers talking about the healthcare bill.

"I didn't read it, I don't know what's in it, even though I signed my name to it and endorsed it".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2011, 11:41:17 am
It was a "newsletter."  Not vastly different from any other magazine.  The publisher seldom actually edits them, and Paul never signed his name to any of these comments, nor did he endorse them.

Man, ISF, your guy is stinking things up so badly you have to resort to otto-style tactics?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2011, 11:43:56 am
Quit picking on Oddo.  He can't help it.  He went to the University of Wisconsin PS 137.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 22, 2011, 12:05:58 pm
LMAO. Jes, your guy has you so brainwashed you'll make up any excuse for him.

I'm sure he had someone else submit all those earmarks for his district too...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 22, 2011, 12:08:26 pm
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/22/paul-in-1995-say-have-you-read-my-newsletters/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 pm
Your link, ISF, offers nothing resembling any inconsistency in Paul's statements.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on December 22, 2011, 12:44:14 pm
Exactly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 22, 2011, 01:14:36 pm
Well jes, does your candidate support the Martin Luther King Holiday or not? If the answer is the one Trent Lott supported, your candidate may be a tacit racist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2011, 05:03:18 pm
A person is racist if he doesn't support a MLK Holiday?

What an idiot.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2011, 07:06:15 pm
Even more an idiot when you consider that Paul voted FOR the MLK holiday.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2011, 07:11:57 pm
Nelson Linder of NAACP defends Ron Paul saying he's not racist -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQunL58Ddjw
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2011, 12:59:59 pm
Jes

Provide the link to the vote.

Davepee

Yes, not acknowledging the importance of MLK and his impact to American culture and sense of fairness thru a Holiday does mean you may be a tacit racist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 23, 2011, 01:03:43 pm
That is one of the more idiotic statements ever made by a person specializing in idiotic statements.


Anyone trying to make that a racist issue is himself racist, as most liberals are.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 23, 2011, 03:19:25 pm
Davepee

Do you support the MLK National Holiday?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 23, 2011, 05:19:47 pm
I am satisfied with the number of holidays we have at the present time.  And I don't subscribe to group identities.  I am proud of George Washington and Gorge Washington Carver.  I see no reason why King should be given a holiday just because of his skin color.  Only liberals have to ease their collective guilt by judging people by their color, while accusing others of doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on December 23, 2011, 05:24:39 pm
"I have a dream..."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 23, 2011, 06:48:45 pm
Jes

Provide the link to the vote.

Provide the links to votes where he voted AGAINST it.

Even the folks at politifact, while trying to make Paul look bad, report that Paul voted in favor of the MLK Holiday.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/17/ron-paul/a-few-exceptions-to-his-small-government-principle/  For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in January.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 24, 2011, 08:47:38 am
Actually we have too many holidays for political purpose.  Here in Illinois Pulaski Day was put in for  the Polish vote.  I'm opposed to it, but I didn't realize that made me anti-Polish.  I'll have to go do penance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 24, 2011, 08:55:11 am
Your being against Pulaski Day does not make you anti-Polish.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 24, 2011, 08:55:51 am
However, your burning a cross on the lawn of the Polish Old Peoples Home is a bit of a tip off.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 24, 2011, 09:08:54 am
Well, I am anti-Pol, but that's a personal matter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 24, 2011, 09:10:24 am
Personally, I prefer Char Dogs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 24, 2011, 10:37:22 pm
You're not my Auntie Pol.  My Auntie is a friend of mine, and you are no Auntie Pol.

Although you DO look a little like my grandmother.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 25, 2011, 08:25:58 am
That's a harsh thing to say to P2.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 25, 2011, 10:17:12 am
I understand that his grandmother is quite handsome.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 25, 2011, 11:13:14 am
In a Walter Matthau sort of way, yes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 28, 2011, 10:07:39 pm
Editorial

Mr. Paul’s Discredited Campaign

New York Times
Published: December 27, 2011
 
Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now, making things worse, he has failed to convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years — or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups.

Mr. Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who is doing particularly well in Iowa’s precaucus polls, published several newsletters in the ’80s and ’90s with names like the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Political Report. The newsletters interspersed libertarian political and investment commentary with racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and far-right paranoia.

Among other offensive statements, the newsletters said that 95 percent of Washington’s black males were criminals, and they described the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as “Hate Whitey Day.” One 1993 article appeared under a headline lamenting the country’s “disappearing white majority.” Other articles suggested that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, praised the Louisiana racist David Duke and accused some gay men with AIDS of deliberately spreading the disease, “perhaps out of a pathological hatred.”

A direct-mail ad for the newsletters from around 1993 warned of a “coming race war in our big cities” and said there was a “federal-homosexual cover-up” to suppress the impact of AIDS.

Mr. Paul, who, beginning in 2008, has disavowed the articles and their ideas, now says that most of them were written by others and that he was unaware of their content. Even if that were the case, it suggests a stupendous level of negligence that should force a reconsideration by anyone considering entrusting him with the White House.

When the newsletters first became an issue during his Congressional campaigns in the 1990s, however, he did not deny writing some of them or knowing about them.

Mr. Paul has never given a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication. It’s especially important that he do so immediately. Those writings have certainly not been forgotten by white supremacist and militia groups that are promoting his candidacy in Iowa and in New Hampshire.

The Times reported on Sunday that dozens of members of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront are volunteering for the Paul campaign, along with far-right militias, survivalists and anti-Zionist groups. Don Black, the Stormfront director, said his members were drawn to Mr. Paul by the newsletters and his positions against immigration and the Fed (run by Jews, Mr. Black said), even if Mr. Paul were not himself a white nationalist.

Mr. Paul, saying he still hopes to “convert” these supporters to his views, has refused to disavow them or to chase them out of his campaign. If he does not do so, he will leave a lasting stain on his candidacy, on the libertarian movement and, very possibly, on the Iowa caucuses.

Enjoy
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 01, 2012, 04:48:39 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2011/12/25/sen-harry-reids-unicorns-fact-checking-a-whopper/

ECONOMICS | 12/25/2011 @ 10:15PM
Sen. Harry Reid's Unicorns: Fact Checking A Whopper

Tax policy should be serious business carried out by serious politicians using real facts and figures. This is why we have the Library of Congress and the Congressional Budget Office, among other expert institutions.

How can we take Congress seriously when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, makes patently inaccurate, outrageous and bizarre claims on an important tax-policy issue without any heads being turned? I guess this is what we have come to expect of Congress. No wonder citizens with favorable opinions of Congress are as rare as unicorns, to borrow a phrase.

Harry Reid’s statement on December 6 on his proposed 1.9 percent surtax on million-dollar incomes has kicked up some dust. Here is his statement:

“Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They’re impossible to find, and they don’t exist… Only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than 1 percent, are small business owners. And only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction are traditional job creators…Most of these businesses are hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers. They don’t do much hiring and they don’t need tax breaks.”

Taking their cue, National Public Radio launched a search for one millionaire job creator. They triumphantly announced:

“NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.”

Were it not for Google, I would have accepted Harry Reid’s unicorn story and NPR’s confirmation. Unlike Harry Reid’s office, I went to the IRS’s Table 1.4 “Sources of income, adjustments, and tax size of adjusted gross income, 2009” to check things out. (I summarize my sources in a separate blog posting). Here is what I found:

There are 236,883 tax filers with incomes of a million dollars or more. By Harry Reid’s count, only one percent, or 2,361 of them, are business owners, and a tiny fraction of them create jobs. I do not know what Harry means when he says “a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.” If we let 5 percent represent Harry’s “tiny fraction,” we are left with 118 businesses owners who earn a million or more and create jobs. Yes, they are only slightly less rare than unicorns, if Harry is to be believed.

This leaves 236,765 million-dollar-plus tax payers, most of whom are “hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers” who “don’t create jobs and don’t need tax breaks.”

My Google search for Harry Reid’s quarter million hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers came up empty handed. I could identify at most sixteen thousand “wealthy lawyers and hedge fund managers,” not Harry Reid’s quarter million.

Well, Harry Reid’s numbers leave much to be desired, but maybe he is right that millionaire business owners do not create jobs.

What does the IRS have to say about this? Millionaire tax filers earn a total taxable income of $623 billion, on which they pay the highest average rate (30 percent) of any tax bracket. (Either Warren Buffet’s secretary has an incompetent tax accountant or Buffet has some pretty juicy tax breaks. I think the latter is more likely). A 1.9 percent tax surcharge on million-dollar-earners would yield $11 billion, assuming those shifty millionaires take no evasive action to avoid the tax.

Millionaire tax filers earn $221 billion – almost a quarter of a trillion — from business and professions, partnerships, and S-corporations. This is puzzling: If Harry Reid’s figure is correct (2,361 millionaire businesses), then the average millionaire-owned business earns almost a hundred million dollars, and all, except 118 of them, do this without hiring anyone. These super heroes do their own typing, selling, drafting. public relations, building, and manufacturing. They do not need employees. Remarkable!

To summarize:

Millionaire tax filers earn almost a quarter trillion dollars from their businesses. They must hire hundreds of thousands of employees to do so.

There are a trivial number of millionaire hedge-fund managers and wealthy lawyers (who, according to Harry, do not hire anyone and don’t need tax breaks). The millionaire tax surcharge is not aimed at them, but at the tens of thousands of millionaire business owners.

A 1.9 percent surcharge on millionaires would raise at most eleven billion dollars. By today’s standards, this is chump change, within the federal budget’s rounding error.

The millionaire’s tax is not about balancing the budget. It is about gaining political advantage through the use of envy and greed (two of the seven deadly sins).

Why would Harry Reid tell such whoppers, which are so easily disproved?

Ryan Streeter has hit the nail on the head. He writes that even bearded Occupy Wall Street misfits understand the difference between “earned” and “unearned” success. Those who earn success by creating value honestly are the true heroes in our economy. They should be lauded rather than targeted. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are heroes. Bernie Madoff and, now it seems, John Corzine are not, and everyone, irrespective of their political leanings, understands this.

Reid, in his clumsy way, is trying to portray Republicans as the party of dishonest millionaires, who have not earned their wealth, have not created jobs, detract rather than create value, and refuse to pay their fair share. Such class warfare will be the anchor of the Democrat election playbook.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 02, 2012, 11:33:30 am
ISF, how are things looking for Santorum tomorrow?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 02, 2012, 12:13:32 pm
Santorum is certain to be in the top three, and might take it all in Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 02, 2012, 01:10:24 pm
Turnout is key, but we feel confident we'll win.

30% would be a nice number, but if I had to venture a guess at this point, I'd say 27% wins.

Santorum:    27%
Paul:  22%
Romney: 21%
Perry: 12%
Gingrich: 10%
Bachmann: 6%
Other: 2%
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 02, 2012, 01:17:43 pm
Nate Silver is currently giving Romney a 42% chance of winning the caucus, followed by Ron Paul at 34% chance and Santorum at 20%. 

From the feel of things, though, it seems like each of those guys has probably about a 1 in 3 chance.  One of the things Silver has talked a lot about lately is how momentum is usually a lot more important in a primary than a general election and you can expect a candidate with the momentum in a primary election to get a boost over their final polling numbers.  Seems like the guy with the momentum right now is Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 02, 2012, 10:59:06 pm
I just don't see Santorum as electable. His culture warrior status will be exploited by the liberal media, be hyped by Dems as a means of increasing turnout, and alienate independent voters. Thoughts, ISF?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 03, 2012, 12:12:05 am
Santorum might win in Iowa, but he has little chance to win the nomination.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on January 03, 2012, 10:32:32 am
As an Iowan I am tired of the caucuses.  If you are a registered Republican your phone rings 5 -7 times a night with political calls.  Does anybody know what percentage of canidates who win Iowa actually go on to win the nomination?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 03, 2012, 11:00:28 am
As an Iowan I am tired of the caucuses.  If you are a registered Republican your phone rings 5 -7 times a night with political calls.  Does anybody know what percentage of canidates who win Iowa actually go on to win the nomination?

Not a great track record on the Republican side.  Only 3 of 6 Iowa winners in contested caucuses have gone on to win the GOP nomination - Ford '76, Dole '96, and Bush '00.
 
Bush '80, Dole '88, and Huckabee '08 won Iowa but didn't win the Republican nomination.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 03, 2012, 11:30:25 am
As an Iowan I am tired of the caucuses.  If you are a registered Republican your phone rings 5 -7 times a night with political calls.  Does anybody know what percentage of canidates who win Iowa actually go on to win the nomination?

Does anyone know what percentage of candidates who do not finish in the top 4 go on to win the nomination?

I believe the answer is none.

The role of the first primary or caucus is NOT to pick the winner.  The role is to thin the field to allow a better choice of who should win.  Iowa does that reasonably well.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 03, 2012, 12:38:45 pm
Jes is correct. We weed the field. South Carolina is a much better predictor of the winner.

tico, a Santorum nomination would mean record turnout in November. He would energize both the right and the left to get out.
He is very electable. He is the strongest candidate we have on foreign policy. 8 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee,
authored/sponsored the Syria Accountability Act in 2003 and the Iran Freedom and Support Act in 2005/06.

The next President might well nominate 2 judges to SCOTUS. We need someone who will make sure the court doesn't go left.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 03, 2012, 12:43:00 pm
Santorum would also completely alienate the middle, and and actually push many self-identified Republicans to vote Democratic.

As I have said, I believe ANY of the declared Republican candidates would beat Obama in 2012 (even the invisible Buddy Roemer), but the only one less electable than Santorum is likely Bachmann.

Santorum would give Obama a real shot of being re-elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on January 03, 2012, 12:59:46 pm
With all the canidates buying up the airtime on television I really do miss my seed corn and herbicide comercials. At least they will be back on Wednesday!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 03, 2012, 01:25:28 pm
The only way Santorum will "energize" the left (and the center, for that matter) is to get them to actively campaign & vote against him.  His record and positions on social issues make him unelectable. 

There are going to be a lot of disappointed republicans in November when Obama wins a second term.  Barring a huge surge for Huntsman in New Hampshire over the next 7 days, Romney is the only candidate with a prayer of being in the White House 13 months from now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 03, 2012, 01:58:23 pm
brjones, I think that was what ISF meant.  I can't imagine he meant that Santorum would get the left or moderates out eager to vote for him.

But I disagree about Romney being the only one who could beat Obama.  Paul would peel off much of the liberal vote, would keep the Republican base just because they want to get rid of Obama, and also draw a huge chunk of moderates.  Paul is the only candidate who offers a credible approach to reducing the deficit, and balancing the budget.  He is the only candidate who would end the war.  And he has the best economic plan of the field.  As the field is thinned out, he will have a greater opportunity to put forth his case and argue it, and he is the one candidate who is certain to remain to the end against Romney.

Back to Santorum, the guy not only is a chicken-hawk pro-war Republican, and a fundamentalist who wants to impose both religious values but also religion on the rest of the nation, and a big government Republican who supports government intrusion into private life, he also believes government should direct economic decisions.  True enough that he doesn't like the economic direction Obama has provided and he would change it, he still wants government to direct the economy, just to direct it the way HE would like.  (He want economic policy to directly favor heavy industry.)  He also is a hypocrite of incredible magnitude, calling for limited and Constitutional government at the federal level while at the same time pushing federal legislation dealing with "puppy mills," not something most folks would think of as a federal issue or something the Constitution contemplated Congress regulating, but pets and animals are a big issue for Santorum personally, so Constitution principles be dambed.  Santorum and Bachmann are the two candidates who might be more frightening than the idea of Obama getting another 4 years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 03, 2012, 02:02:44 pm
The only way Santorum will "energize" the left (and the center, for that matter) is to get them to actively campaign & vote against him. 

That's why I said there would be record turnout and the left would be energized.

This country is right-center. The center is not going to vote against him when Obama is seen as far left.

As for the unelectable argument, that is nonsense spewed by people who clearly don't know his record in Congress.
If he's unelectable, we don't have an electable candidate.

Side note: The Ron Paul campaign has spent the last 2 days robo-calling and sliming the other candidates, especially Santorum, instead of propping up their guy. You want unelectable? There it is. When the only argument you have at zero hour is trying to tear down others, you have failed.
State Senator Kent Sorenson has thrown away his political career on this. Defecting from Bachmann to Paul for $$$ and to leave a sinking ship has lost him a future in the GOP. The party is looking for a primary opponent already.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 03, 2012, 02:24:04 pm
This country is right-center. The center is not going to vote against him when Obama is seen as far left.

Except that a great many in the center do not view Obama as "far left" and much of what he has done in office (including THREE wars and trashing civil liberties to a degree even Bush did not imagine) allows reasonable people to reach that conclusion.  Much of the center would go to Obama over Santorum.  If my vote were the deciding one, determining whether Obama returns to office or Santorum replaces him, Obama would get another 4 years.... and I HATE Obama.  A Santorum candidacy would cause a great many of those supporting Paul to vote for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket, something a Romney candidacy would not do (some would, yes, but relatively few compared to what would happen with Santorum.

State Senator Kent Sorenson has thrown away his political career on this. Defecting from Bachmann to Paul for $$$ and to leave a sinking ship has lost him a future in the GOP. The party is looking for a primary opponent already.

Sorenson was not looking for a "political career," and, other than Bachmann, who has no credibility, what evidence is there that Sorenson moved to Paul for money?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 03, 2012, 02:42:34 pm
The problem with your assumption is that the center doesn't really see Obama as that far left (at least in my opinion).  He clearly wasn't seen as far left in 2008, and I don't think that view has changed that much.  I think most see him as a nice guy who hasn't done a good job, but has mostly maintained the status quo from the Bush years.  And maybe more importantly, they see him as a guy they have enough in common with that they could imagine comfortably sitting down and having a beer with him. 

And I am convinced people in the center perceive Santorum to be even further out of the mainstream in the opposite direction on social issues.  Candidates who represent mainstream views (or even just-outside-the-mainstream views) typically don't take positions that generate enough outrage for explicit alternate meanings of their names go viral, for example.

By the way, I agree that Ron Paul is unelectable...perceptions mean a lot, and he is perceived as crazy by at least 70% of the country.  Assuming Obama maintains status quo and nothing gets worse between now and November, my belief is that 5 of the 7 probably can't win in a general election (and the candidate who would be most electable in the general election has no real chance to get the nomination).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 03, 2012, 02:54:31 pm
Br and I are on the same page.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 03, 2012, 02:55:53 pm
br, tico, and I are on the same page.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 03, 2012, 06:17:59 pm
(and the candidate who would be most electable in the general election has no real chance to get the nomination).

And who do you think that would be?  Huntzman?

He is not even close to being the most electable in the general.  Huntzman would really result in not excitement for any base, and with much of the Republican base staying home.

Huntzman, like anyone else would likely win, but he is not even close to the most electable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 03, 2012, 06:20:09 pm
An interesting endorsement... and he nails it.


If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle’s interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.

It is not the government’s job to dictate to individuals how they must live. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty. My Uncle Rick cannot fathom a society in which people cooperate and work with each other freely. When Republicans were spending so much money under President Bush, my uncle was right there along with them as a senator. The reason we have so much debt is not only because of Democrats, but also because of big-spending Republicans like my Uncle Rick.

It is because of this inability of status quo politicians to recognize the importance of our individual liberties that I have been drawn to Ron Paul. Unlike my uncle, he does not believe that the American people are incapable of forming decisions. He believes that an individual is more powerful than any group (a notion our founding fathers also believed in).

Another important reason I support Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. He is the only candidate willing to bring our troops home, not only from the Middle East, but from around the world.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.

This year, I’ll vote for an honest change in our government. I’ll vote for real hope. I’ll vote for a real leader. This year, I will vote for Ron Paul.

John Garver is a 19-year-old student at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. John is a strong supporter of Ron Paul despite his love for family member Rick Santorum.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/the-trouble-with-my-uncle-rick-santorum/#ixzz1iRbDwxjZ
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 03, 2012, 10:04:02 pm
Jes, first off, saying Sorenson was not looking for a political career is ridiculous. Have you followed his career? Have you ever spoken to him?
We are on a first name basis. He had plans. They are an ash heap.

And it now appears he took the money for a 3rd place finish. The money did not come from the Ron Paul campaign. It came from a supporting group.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 03, 2012, 10:11:48 pm
ISF, I have seen him interviewed, and he has said he had no plans, but I am sure you know what he hoped to do better than he did, so I will take your word on his intentions and ignore his own statements.

You have now made the claim at least twice that he took money for the endorsement, something he also denies.

Just what sources do you have for that, because Michelle Bachmann has no credibility as a source for anything?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 03, 2012, 11:46:47 pm
How about his own Campaign director Susan Geddes?
I don't have to provide a source Jes. You aren't here. You're making sh*t up from Tennessee.
You're trying to play defense lawyer for a guy who went on fox, was asked point blank if he received money from ANY source, and kept saying "I didn't take a nickel from the RON PAUL CAMPAIGN".

Guess why he said that...

You don't have to believe it. Every politico in the know here is already writing his political epitaph. He sold his future for 3rd place, 5 days before the caucus.

FAIL.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 03, 2012, 11:48:47 pm
http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/kent-sorenson%E2%80%99s-history-of-selling-out/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 04, 2012, 01:53:31 am
I don't have to provide a source Jes. You aren't here. You're making sh*t up from Tennessee.

Except I made nothing up.  YOU appear to have, but I made nothing up.  I simply said that the guy said very clearly in at least two interviews on the national news that the Paul campaign had paid him nothing.  You made various accusations and I asked what sources you had.  You are correct that you do not have to provide any.  You can make whatever wild accusations you want about anyone you want, and you can literally MAKE THEM UP.  Of course, that doesn't mean anyone will believe them, but you can do it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 04, 2012, 07:33:27 am
I simply said that the guy said very clearly in at least two interviews on the national news that the Paul campaign had paid him nothing.

Yes, yes he did. And I agree. The Paul campaign paid him nothing. I believe I've already stated that.

Probably because it would be an FEC violation for him to be paid by the campaign.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 04, 2012, 10:23:28 am
Yes, yes he did. And I agree. The Paul campaign paid him nothing. I believe I've already stated that.  Probably because it would be an FEC violation for him to be paid by the campaign.

So does that mean you acknowledge that your comment You're making sh*t up from Tennessee, was made without reference to anything I was "making... up"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 04, 2012, 10:23:40 am
Our man Barrack.... at least HE has his priorities right.....

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/barack-obama-fundraiser-every-five-days-2011
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 04, 2012, 10:34:02 am
So does that mean you acknowledge that your comment You're making sh*t up from Tennessee, was made without reference to anything I was "making... up"?


No, you suggested he had no plans for a "career" in politics. Which is ludicrous. And my source for the fact that he did is....Kent Sorenson.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 04, 2012, 10:58:15 am
No, you suggested he had no plans for a "career" in politics. Which is ludicrous. And my source for the fact that he did is....Kent Sorenson.


ISF, think a minute.  You assert that what Sorenson did will kill any political career he wanted.  You assert it immediately, state it as an absolute and obvious fact, and appear to have had a LOT of folks in Iowa agree with you, and I am not doubting you on the issue.  (And are state legislators in Iowa paid enough for it to constitute a "career"?)

But if that was so obvious to you, would it not also have been obvious to Sorenson?  Or is the man so utterly oblivious to such things that despite holding elective office, and being sought out by the campaign organizations of two of the presidential candidates in the state, he did not see it?  He was entirely unaware of how that action would harm his great political ambitions?

I will acknowledge that I made a statement about his political plans based on the words from his own mouth, but I disagree a bit on your characterization of that as "making sh*ts up."  Now, I will concede that I may have been wrong, but that is not the same as "making sh*t up."  You, on the other hand, obviously would not make anything up, even though you are concluding things which would seem rather at odds with logic (such as he still had any further political ambitions when he did something which so obviously would end them) and for which you have to leap to conclusions (such as any money he would get would not come from the Paul campaign but from someone else).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FITS on January 04, 2012, 02:56:56 pm
Anybody ever Google "santorum?"

Here's one of the first things in the results list: http://spreadingsantorum.com/

I don't frequent this thread, so apologies if it was already posted.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 04, 2012, 04:01:12 pm
I think it'll be interesting to see if Huntsman finally gets a serious look soon.  Nate Silver has talked a lot lately about how if the Iowa results are indecisive and doesn't leave anyone looking particularly great that it has a reasonable chance of happening.  Nobody seems to be impressed by Romney's 8 vote win, and there are still a ton of people who aren't sold on Santorum. 

It seems like all of the anti-Romney's have gotten at least one good long look during the primaries, so it might finally be Huntsman's turn.  George Will and Erick Erickson have both mentioned recently that Huntsman deserves more consideration, which isn't what you'd expect for someone who's supposed to be the most liberal candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 04, 2012, 04:10:15 pm
You know one name that has totally faded...for which I am grateful...is Palin.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 04, 2012, 04:10:28 pm
Huntsman is not an anti Romney to conservatives, just as Paul is not an acceptable alternative to Romney.

I think that if Perry stays in the race, he will get a second look from conservatives.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 04, 2012, 04:10:30 pm
Huntsman is likely to end up behind Santorum in NH and out of the race after it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 04, 2012, 04:12:19 pm
Dave, there are three reasons I don't think Perry will get back in.  But I can't remember the third one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 04, 2012, 04:13:58 pm
Perry's second look will depend entirely on whether he appears competent in the next debates. He has to perform as well as or better than Santorum.
Otherwise, there's no reason for conservatives to look at him when an alternative to Romney has been established (and maybe two, depending on if Gingrich can keep his poll numbers up in SC and FL).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 04, 2012, 04:21:02 pm
For Curt, this was posted yesterday:

http://www.ology.com/politics/can-sarah-palins-iowa-earthquake-rock-caucuses/01032012
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 04, 2012, 04:30:01 pm
I've been a Huntsman fan all along, so I'd love to see him get that surge.  But it pretty much has to happen in the next week.  If he doesn't have a really strong performance in New Hampshire (probably stronger than his current poll numbers), seems like he's done.  I'm not too optimistic.

I will say that I was just listening to Santorum being interviewed by Hannity (who is awful) on the radio in my car, and it sounds like Santorum and Gingrich are both going to go very hard after Romney in New Hampshire.  But Gingrich has already peaked there and I just don't see Santorum appealing to too many Romney supporters--they seem to have two completely different bases.  If the surge is going to come, it might be because Huntsman is the unintended beneficiary to some of Santorum's and Gingrich's efforts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 04, 2012, 05:06:42 pm

I will say that I was just listening to Santorum being interviewed by Hannity (who is awful) on the radio in my car...

Did Hannity let him speak?  I love how he asks questions and then when people start to answer, he interrupts them to give the answer himself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 04, 2012, 05:54:14 pm
Debates are a great way to tell if someone should be president.  Obama is a great debater.  Probably why he is such a great president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 04, 2012, 06:09:25 pm
How the hell did GWB get elected?

Twice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 04, 2012, 06:26:05 pm
What's wrong with Palin, Curt?  Too shrill?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 04, 2012, 06:43:51 pm
Polarizing.  Can't beat Obama, I don't believe, with someone that polarizing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 04, 2012, 07:57:27 pm
True.  Obama certainly isn't polarizing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 04, 2012, 08:02:32 pm
I think people here are caught in a bubble that exaggerates in a negative way the public perception of Obama. In terms of an inividual being polarizing, Palin makes Obama look like Winnie the Pooh.

I say that as a conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 04, 2012, 08:02:53 pm
You can be polarizing if the media loves you.  Moran.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 04, 2012, 08:14:17 pm
Tico is right.  This is what most of the republican candidates and guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. don't seem to realize.  And it's why the republicans are probably going to lose this year.  This constant, rabid "Obama is a socialist who wants to destroy the country" position that most of the vocal right takes makes everyone who is left of Hannity dismiss most criticisms of him (including many that are legitimate).

Obama only makes the far right conservative base hate him.  But the majority of people towards the middle think he's just in over his head, but is a nice guy who'd be fun to have a beer with.  Not really polarizing.  On the other hand, Palin makes pretty much everyone but the far, far right conservative base (who loves her) think she's crazy.  Pretty much the definition of polarizing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 04, 2012, 08:16:29 pm
You can be polarizing if the media loves you.  Moran.

Tico snuck in there; that was directed at Davep.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on January 04, 2012, 08:21:09 pm
You guys are really overanalyzing this.

The winner of the 2012 election will be the candidate who is more physically attractive.

In the TV era, that variable has never failed to successfully choose the winner.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 04, 2012, 08:23:08 pm
I think Palin is shrill. I don't know how anyone can listen to her voice for more than a minute.

And i'm not sure that Winnie-the-Pooh deserves the comparison to Obama, although, he is a bear with very little brain...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 04, 2012, 08:24:47 pm
Tico is right.  This is what most of the republican candidates and guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. don't seem to realize.  And it's why the republicans are probably going to lose this year.  This constant, raybid "Obama is a socialist who wants to destroy the country" position that most of the vocal right takes makes everyone who is left of Hannity dismiss most criticisms of him (including many that are legitimate).

Obama only makes the far right conservative base hate him.  But the majority of people towards the middle think he's just in over his head, but is a nice guy who'd be fun to have a beer with.  Not really polarizing.  On the other hand, Palin makes pretty much everyone but the far, far right conservative base (who loves her) think she's crazy.  Pretty much the definition of polarizing.

This.

The problem with the rhetoric is that it distracts from Obama's issues.

I still think the Romney wins, but not because of any major campaigning success. I think there's an above average chance the economy gets worse next year, in which case the incumbent will get the boot. The election will have very little to do with the candidates running or their respective positions. That's my guess.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 04, 2012, 08:30:06 pm
You guys are really overanalyzing this.

The winner of the 2012 election will be the candidate who is more physically attractive.

In the TV era, that variable has never failed to successfully choose the winner.

Sigh.  It's true.  If I were running, I'd win hands down.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 04, 2012, 11:14:41 pm
But the majority of people towards the middle think he's just in over his head, but is a nice guy who'd be fun to have a beer with.

I have had beers with a lot of friends.

And not one of them would I want to be president.

I really don't think too many people make their decision based on who they would like to drink suds with.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on January 04, 2012, 11:32:38 pm
How the hell did GWB get elected?

Twice.

1. Al Gore
2. John Kerry
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 05, 2012, 09:08:26 am
I really don't think too many people make their decision based on who they would like to drink suds with.

The country would be a much better place if that were true.  Unfortunately, a great many voters base there decision on factors much less important than that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 05, 2012, 09:10:27 am
1. Al Gore
2. John Kerry

My point.  Both were better debaters, yet W won. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 05, 2012, 09:26:40 am
Unfortunately, a great many voters base there decision on factors much less important than that.

No question that many base their decision on factors both you and I would consider much less important than who they would prefer having a beer with.... but who they would prefer to have a beer with is not a factor used by too many people in deciding who to vote for.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 05, 2012, 09:35:56 am
No.  But "likeability" is.  And that is what the media (and most people) mean when they use the beer analogy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 05, 2012, 09:37:15 am
The hood ornament of Obama's first term is ObamaCare.

So how does the GOP contrast itself and win if its nominee crafted the government-mandated healthcare program that served as the template for ObamaCare?

This is the question I can't answer with any optimism, and I caucused for Romney 4 years ago.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 05, 2012, 09:38:51 am
But Humphrey was certainly more "likeable" than Nixon.  So was McGovern.  Hard to think of many people LESS likeable than Nixon.

And that is one S-O-B I can't imagine many people having wanted to share a beer with....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 05, 2012, 09:48:15 am
The hood ornament of Obama's first term is ObamaCare.

So how does the GOP contrast itself and win if its nominee crafted the government-mandated healthcare program that served as the template for ObamaCare?

This is the question I can't answer with any optimism, and I caucused for Romney 4 years ago.



I think you have to keep pounding away that it was designed for a state, not the whole country.  I realize that's Romney's primary excuse, but it has some validity.  There are lots of things that we would be better served if they were left up to the states and not mandated by the federal government, such as abortion.  You allow individuals and companies to move if they cannot stand the social or economic climate of a state.  When the federal government mandates, their is no Last Frontier to move to, until they open up settlements on the moon.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 05, 2012, 10:03:10 am
... their is no Last Frontier to move to ...

Just preserving.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 05, 2012, 10:03:59 am
I'm too lazy to go back and change their to there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 05, 2012, 10:05:31 am
The hood ornament of Obama's first term is ObamaCare.

So how does the GOP contrast itself and win if its nominee crafted the government-mandated healthcare program that served as the template for ObamaCare?

This is the question I can't answer with any optimism, and I caucused for Romney 4 years ago.

Actually the hood ornament for Obama's first term is he hasn't gotten the economy turned around, and Romney is easily the most credible candidate to go against Obama on the economy.  Ending Obamacare is an important issue for maybe half the electorate (and that half is going to get a candidate who opposes Obamacare regardless), but it pales in comparison to the economy.  Everybody and their mother wants the economy turned around.  The economy is the #1 issue in 2012, and nothing else comes close.

That's the biggest reason why Romney is the strongest candidate to go against Obama.  He's the strongest candidate on the most important issue, and it's the issue where Obama is the weakest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 05, 2012, 10:13:37 am
My concern is how the media spins the economy.  For example, "It's the economy, Stupid" Clinton defeated Bush, the economy was not so bad it was necessary to defeat a sitting President, but Bill kept wisely pounding on it, the media picked it up and sold it.

Just last week, jobless numbers improved...the way the media spun it, but they left out what they STRESSED during the Bush administration...sometimes unemployment numbers improve, not because people got jobs, but because people gave up looking. 

That's why this issue is a crapshoot.  You almost have to root for the economy to tank in the next 10 months.  Who wants to root for that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 05, 2012, 10:14:29 am
Gas prices have gone down and are expected to stay down for awhile.  That will be the biggest artificial boon to the economy.  People will save five dollars on a tank of gas and will justify spending fifty dollars on dinner since they have so much expendible money.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 05, 2012, 10:27:40 am
http://www.news-journalonline.com/business/money/consumer-news/2012/01/04/area-gas-price-rise-expected-how-much-is-anybodys-guess.html

gas prices expected to go UP...at least here
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 05, 2012, 10:33:07 am
Wait a week, keys.  Who knows.  They were supposed to go last summer too and only went up.  It's anyone's guess, but I think they will be lower before the election, and Obama will claim credit - he'll open up a precious reserve or something.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 05, 2012, 12:05:00 pm
That's the biggest reason why Romney is the strongest candidate to go against Obama.  He's the strongest candidate on the most important issue, and it's the issue where Obama is the weakest.

A libertarian, free market approach, as supported by Paul would actually do far, far more, and do it faster.

One of the major problems I have with Romney (aside from those we often hear) is that Romney repeatedly talks about changing the regulatory process to being one which encourages and helps business instead of hurts business.  That approach would be as misguided as the current approach.

To the extent that regulation is needed, the goal should be to interfere with or distort or influence economic decision-making as little as possible while still accomplishing the essential goal of regulation.  It should NOT be helping business, partly because government "help" of anyone in the marketplace generally comes at the expense of someone else, but also because for government to "help" it would require government bureaucrats to know what should be done and to make the ride decisions on it, an assumption which is the premise of socialism or any system under which the government runs the economy or effectively takes over companies like GM.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 05, 2012, 08:29:24 pm
Agree with Jes. Which is why I think if GOP nominee wins they should consider Paul as Secretary of the Treasury.

I don't trust him with the Presidency, but he knows economics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 05, 2012, 09:55:20 pm
ISF, the Secretary of Treasure in modern times does very little if anything in the setting of policy, and none of the other presidential candidates agree with Paul on what should be done with the Treasury Department or the Fed, meaning such an appointment would make no sense for a president, and also no sense for Paul.  Paul is running not because he particularly wants the office, but because he wants to influence policy.  As a department head, completely subservient to the president, he would not be able to advance any policy other than those of the president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 06, 2012, 07:17:59 am
Sounds like the ideal position for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 06, 2012, 09:00:18 am
Isn't the Federal Reserve the keeper of the economy anyway?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 06, 2012, 09:35:56 am
Jes, the Secretary of the Treasury is not "completely subservient" to the President. I also think there are things that Paul agrees on with the others, including an audit of the Fed. I don't think Paul would have a problem with pushing that. At any rate, in that office he could apply pressure to Congress for spending cuts that Geithner hasn't really pushed. He could push for reduction of regulatory processes, and he could have a bully pulpit to speak out against consideration of future stimulus.

I don't see any of the current candidates disagreeing with any of that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 06, 2012, 09:49:41 am
Isn't the Federal Reserve the keeper of the economy anyway?

Not even sure what "keeper of the economy means."  Not exactly a term which would be defined in legislation, and I certainly don't recall seeing it in any economic texts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 06, 2012, 09:58:36 am
Jes, the Secretary of the Treasury is not "completely subservient" to the President. I also think there are things that Paul agrees on with the others, including an audit of the Fed. I don't think Paul would have a problem with pushing that. At any rate, in that office he could apply pressure to Congress for spending cuts that Geithner hasn't really pushed. He could push for reduction of regulatory processes, and he could have a bully pulpit to speak out against consideration of future stimulus.

I don't see any of the current candidates disagreeing with any of that.

So even though the President appoints the Secretary of the Treasury, and can remove him at will, without any approval or consultation with anyone, and can effectively change the lock on the door or the office and determine when the Secretary stops getting paid, the Secretary of the Treasury is not "completely subservient" to the President?  An interesting way of looking at things.

The only regulatory processes the Secretary of the Treasury would have any role in handling would be of the banking and financial services industries, and the Secretary of the Treasury has never in any administration in the last 100 years been the point man to advocate spending cuts.  As to auditing the Fed, it is not that Paul agrees with everyone else on this, but that they agree with him -- NO ONE else who is running ever urged auditing the Fed before Paul, and some of them scoffed at the idea before the question was directly put to them in the debates.

As a "bully pulpit," the President has one.  Not the Secretary of Commerce.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 06, 2012, 10:20:56 am
All cabinet members are completely subservient to the president.  If not, he can merely fire them.  It is their job to carry out the policies of the President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 06, 2012, 10:21:43 am
Sorry, Jes, just a comment from the sidelines.  My silly little one-sentence comment wasn't meant to be a treatise on the economy. It was meant as an aside that the Federal Reserve has much more, IN MY OPINION,  control over the economy with the ability to create and control the money supply, raise and lower interest rates, and control borrowing and spending.

IN MY OPINION, if Paul would have greater control over the nation's economics if he was chairman of the Fed as opposed to the Secretary of the Treasury, or Treasury Czar, or whatever it's called now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 06, 2012, 10:39:10 am
It was meant as an aside that the Federal Reserve has much more, IN MY OPINION,  control over the economy with the ability to create and control the money supply, raise and lower interest rates, and control borrowing and spending.

IN MY OPINION, if Paul would have greater control over the nation's economics if he was chairman of the Fed as opposed to the Secretary of the Treasury, or Treasury Czar, or whatever it's called now. 

The Fed is extremely important in the picture, but the chairman of the fed doesn't get to set policy for the Fed.  The Board of Governors set policy, though they generally do follow the direction urged by the chairman.  But the policy taken by the Fed is often forced on it by the actions of Congress and the President.  When Congress and the President spend more money than is coming in, the Fed has to deal with that somehow, generally by either borrowing or printing money (now called "quantitative easing" since they do it with accounting instead of running printing presses).  That is why Paul's emphasis has been on cutting spending over anything else.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 06, 2012, 10:56:54 am
So even though the President appoints the Secretary of the Treasury, and can remove him at will, without any approval or consultation with anyone, and can effectively change the lock on the door or the office and determine when the Secretary stops getting paid, the Secretary of the Treasury is not "completely subservient" to the President?  An interesting way of looking at things.

Correct. I have a boss that hired me too. Part of my job is making decisions. Unless my boss is a complete micro-manager, many of those decisions are made without input or interference from my boss. I am responsible for them. If I were "completely subservient", there would be no reason for the office to exist. The more economic solution would be to just hire a temp to perform the labor when some task needed to be performed.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 06, 2012, 11:01:41 am
I can't believe there are people who think the Cabinet was created to be lackeys for the President, and not advisors.
This is a sad statement on how people understand proper management practices.
Your best executives surround themselves with the best people, not lackeys and yes men.

Just because our current President has done so doesn't mean that is the intention. It's just one of many reasons he is a poor President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 06, 2012, 12:40:22 pm
Reagan was the last President to allow his cabinet independent action with little control.  Most presidents, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama ARE micromanagers, at least to the extent that they would not allow a cabinet member to go contrary to his wishes.

And, of course, cabinet members are selected with the goal in mind of carrying out the policies of the president, not their own.  And this is the way it should be.  Cabinet members are not elected officials, and should be there to carry out the policies of the elected officials.

If they can convince the president that THEIR policies should be HIS policies, fine.  As ISF says, they are there to be advisors.  But they are NOT there to be independent agents.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 06, 2012, 01:49:30 pm
What a load of krap on reagan. He hired republican yes men to his cabinet or else nancy would fire them. Unless your counting the operation in the basement headed by ollie north.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 06, 2012, 01:59:27 pm
Actually, Reagan took little interest in several portions of the government.  Like every president of every party, he appointed people that had the same policy views as he did, but beyond the State Department, Military and one or two other agencies, he pretty much let them go off on their own.

You need to read an actual history book, rather than those idiotic liberal blogs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 06, 2012, 08:51:08 pm
If they can convince the president that THEIR policies should be HIS policies, fine.  As ISF says, they are there to be advisors.  But they are NOT there to be independent agents.

Dave, while I agree with you entirely on this.... I really don't think ISF does.  ISF seems to see Department heads as independent agents, who should be and are free to flout their own policy proposals and ideas without the approval of the White House, and perhaps even policy proposals and ideas which are at odds with the White House, allowing the situation where a department head would presumably feel free to openly and publicly campaign against policy positions of the president which he, the department head, did not like.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 07, 2012, 01:58:25 pm
Jes, please don't try to decide what I believe. I'm pretty capable of posting it myself, and quite frankly, you've proven yourself pretty clueless at guessing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 07, 2012, 02:01:34 pm
It is not my problem that you said they were "completely subservient". They are not. They are expected to advise and take on the responsibility of working toward specified policy goals. Again, if they were just lackeys, we would not have the offices.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2012, 02:58:55 pm
ISF, I am not trying to back away at all from my position that department heads are completely subservient to the president.  They are.  They are in no way independent actors.  They may advise the president, just as you can advise the local butcher if you are so inclined, but the president's opinion is ultimately the only one which counts, just as when you advise your local butcher on how to cut meat when he goes to cutting his next side of beef, his opinion will be the only one that matters.

Yes, I know that the president appoints people to administer departments and agencies and to also advise him, so he may well be more receptive than the local butcher... but only if he decides to be.

Department heads under the president have way less independence than third base coaches do.

If at any point the president decides to remove a department head, for any reason, or for no reason, the guy is gone.  He exists in order to carry out policies either directed by the president, agreed to by the president, or acquiesced to by the president thru silence or lack of interest (which, as Dave pointed out, was often the case with Reagan and his department heads, or earlier with Eisenhower).

As to not having the offices if they were just lackeys, the federal bureaucracy is a very big thing.  There are going to be department heads in order to help carry out and implement the president's policies, not to form or implement their own.  Will every move a department head makes be or need  be approved by the president?  No.... unless that is what the president wants.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 09, 2012, 12:58:34 pm
So davep, the scrub appointed Democratic Politicans to his cabinet like President Obama appointed republic ones to his? Our current President even nominated republic Judd Gregg to a post before Judd decided that his particanship was more powerful than his will to serve the country.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 09, 2012, 01:22:52 pm
Like all presidents, Obama appointed people to his cabinet that he felt would carry out his policies.  What better way to pretend to be bipartisan by appointing someone that belongs to the other party, but espouses policies that correspond with your own, or policies that you consider unimportant.  Bush did the same thing with his cabinet.  I am sure that someone that is up on political history as you are already knows that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 09, 2012, 01:42:09 pm
Actually Gregg did the honorable thing.  If he was in the cabinet, he probably in good conscience couldn't talk about the stimulus or Obamacare without being the cabinet's biggest critic of it, and that would make your guy Obama look bad for having a cabinet member out there criticizing his major policies.

We need more Judd Gregg's in politics.  Actually I wish he was running for president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 09, 2012, 02:08:51 pm
I can't remember names but didn't Clinton's Sec of Transportation stay on under Bush?  Must be an important political role that Dept of Transportation that opposite party people are constantly named to it.  I wonder how often they're excused from Cabinet meetings. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 09, 2012, 03:27:03 pm
Bush did have a cabinet member that was appointed by him - Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 09, 2012, 03:42:57 pm
careful...you guys are going to get poor Otto all confused.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 09, 2012, 04:04:13 pm
Otto is so absolute in his thinking that he forgets that some of the real polarization that we are experiencing now began during the Republican effort to impeach Clinton and climaxed with the 2000 election after which the Democrats refused to cooperate in any fashion with Bush, several turning down Cabinet posts, Mineta being the only one to consent.  If only Gore had asked for a recount of all of Florida, one way or another a lot of this polarization might have been avoided.

OTOH, I think the abortion issue also polarized our politicians, especially when both sides try to sneak related issues into bills having nothing to do with abortion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 09, 2012, 04:28:26 pm
Polarization existed in 1800, when President John Adams left Washington DC early in the morning in March of the year 1801, rather than attend the inauguration of his successor, Thomas Jefferson.

And when the "Sons of Liberty" tarred and feathered their opponents during the American Revolution, it could be considered that a certain amount of polarization existed.

And when the construction workers in New York started pounding the heads of the War demonstrators during the Viet Namese war, and the Hippies threw rocks and **** at the National Guardsmen in Ohio, a little bit of polarization might be construed.

Not to mention the Civil War.

And some of that happened before they tried to impeach Clinton.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 09, 2012, 04:59:36 pm
Obama did have a Republican in an important cabinet post with Robert Gates in Defense.

Obama doesn't have all weak cabinet members.  Gates, Leon Panetta, and Hillary Clinton haven't been weak, "yes" people in the cabinet, and it's probably why Obama's administration has done a pretty good job in national security and foreign affairs IMHO.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 09, 2012, 06:12:44 pm
Blasphemy!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 09, 2012, 07:07:33 pm
Has Hillary been to Iran yet?

Have their returned our drone yet?

... Hillary Clinton haven't been weak, "yes" people in the cabinet, and it's probably why Obama's administration has done a pretty good job in national security and foreign affairs IMHO.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2012, 07:53:04 pm
Actually Gregg did the honorable thing.  If he was in the cabinet, he probably in good conscience couldn't talk about the stimulus or Obamacare without being the cabinet's biggest critic of it, and that would make your guy Obama look bad for having a cabinet member out there criticizing his major policies.

And that is why he would NOT have been out there as a critic of Obama's policies.... unless, of course, you are in the camp that thinks department heads are not subservient to the president.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2012, 07:55:41 pm
Otto is so absolute in his thinking that he forgets that some of the real polarization that we are experiencing now began during the Republican effort to impeach Clinton and climaxed with the 2000 election after which the Democrats refused to cooperate in any fashion with Bush, several turning down Cabinet posts, Mineta being the only one to consent.  If only Gore had asked for a recount of all of Florida, one way or another a lot of this polarization might have been avoided.

Bork, anyone?

When talking about the polarization in Washington, you can't forget Bork.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 09, 2012, 07:58:58 pm
Scoop I'd agree the drone situation wasn't handled that well.  Still if they think the risk of starting a war by bombing the drone wasn't worth whatever information Iran would obtain from the drone (which might be a reasonable judgment, although I have no way of knowing), it does put them in a no win situation.  It's not going to look good PR wise regardless, although coming out publicly like Obama did and telling the whole world that you politely asked for the drone back just makes us look even sillier.

But I think Obama deserves credit for winding down Iraq responsibly, not caving into his base on Guantanimo and Afghanistan, taking a pragmatic and ultimately successful approach to our involvement in Libya, and for getting Osama bin Laden. 

I honestly don't have much of a problem at all with how he's handled foreign affairs, and I honestly like his approach more than Bush's.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2012, 08:00:03 pm
Obama did have a Republican in an important cabinet post with Robert Gates in Defense.

Obama doesn't have all weak cabinet members.  Gates, Leon Panetta, and Hillary Clinton haven't been weak, "yes" people in the cabinet, and it's probably why Obama's administration has done a pretty good job in national security and foreign affairs IMHO.

None of them have been publicly critical of the administration.  None of them has acted or would consider acting as free agents.  It is not a matter of whether they ever voice dissenting views in cabinet meetings, it is a question of whether they do so outside of cabinet meetings or act independent of the White House.  None of them do.... and then there is the question of whether this administration actually HAS done a "pretty good job in national security and foreign affairs."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 09, 2012, 08:19:01 pm
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/394603_683606565488_68705279_33677792_916025484_n.jpg)

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-and-limited-government/
Rick Santorum and Limited Government?

Posted by David Boaz

Scary news today from Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker: despite losing his reelection bid in 2006, former senator Rick Santorum is still thinking about running for president. He tells Parker that he represents the Ronald Reagan issue trinity: the economy, national security and social conservatism. And he’s the limited-government guy:

Both pro-life and pro-traditional family, Santorum is an irritant to many. But he insists that such labels oversimplify. Being pro-life and pro-family ultimately mean being pro-limited government.

When you have strong families and respect for life, he says, “the requirements of government are less. You can have lower taxes and limited government.”

But Santorum is no Reaganite when it comes to freedom and limited government. He told NPR in 2005:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

He declared himself against individualism, against libertarianism, against “this whole idea of personal autonomy, . . . this idea that people should be left alone.” Andrew Sullivan directed our attention to a television interview in which the senator from the home state of Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson denounced America’s Founding idea of “the pursuit of happiness.” If you watch the video, you can hear these classic hits: “This is the mantra of the left: I have a right to do what I want to do” and “We have a whole culture that is focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness . . . and it is harming America.”

Parker says that Santorum is “sometimes referred to as the conscience of Senate Republicans.” Really? By whom? Surely not by Reaganites, or by people who believe in limited government.

*********************************
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/09/rick-santorums-moral-delusions

Rick Santorum's Moral Delusions
Is America really on a downhill slide?


Steve Chapman | January 9, 2012

Why is Rick Santorum running for president? Because America is in trouble and he knows why.

Faith and family are under attack. "Moral relativism," he warns, is breeding "aberrant behavior." Gay rights advocates are bent on "secularization." Liberals have brought about a "decaying culture."

Santorum insists that gay marriage will destroy the family, "the very foundation of our country." Lamenting the scandal of **** priests, he wrote in a Catholic publication: "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

It's a familiar line of argument among religious conservatives, and it has the virtues of clarity, simplicity, and plausibility. But there is one notable weakness in his case: a mass of evidence that amounts to a thunderous refutation.

Santorum takes it for granted that religious belief, at least of the Christian variety, is a powerful force for moral behavior. That's not apparent from looking at this country.

He thinks America has been on a downhill slide for many years, thanks to feminism, gay rights, pornography, and other vile intruders. But where is the evidence that the developments cited by Santorum are producing harmful side effects?

In the past couple of decades, most indicators of moral and social health have gotten better, not worse. Crime has plummeted. Teen pregnancy has declined by 39 percent. Abortion rates among adolescents are less than half what they were.

The incidence of divorce is down. As of 2007, 48 percent of high school students had engaged in sex, compared to 54 percent in 1991. What "decaying culture" is he talking about?

It sounds obvious that when people practice a religion that preaches strong morality and responsible conduct, they will behave better than people who follow their own inclinations. But what is obvious is not always true.

America is a good place to judge the value of faith in promoting virtue. There is a great deal of variation among the 50 states in religious observance—and a great deal of variation in social ills. It turns out that religiosity does not translate into good behavior, and disregard for religion does not go hand-in-hand with vice. Quite the contrary.

Consider homicide, which is not only socially harmful but a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. Mississippi has the highest rate of church attendance in America, according to a Gallup survey, with 63 percent of people saying they go to church "weekly or almost weekly." But Mississippians are far more likely to be murdered than other Americans.

On the other hand, we have Vermont, where people are the most likely to skip church. Its murder rate is only about one-fourth as high as the rest of the country. New Hampshire, the second-least religious state, has the lowest murder rate.

These are no flukes. Of the 10 states with the most worshippers, all but one have higher than average homicide rates. Of the 11 states with the lowest church attendance, by contrast, 10 have low homicide rates.

Teen pregnancy also tends to follow a course precisely the opposite of what Santorum preaches. Almost every one of the most religious states suffers from more teen pregnancy than the norm—while the least religious ones enjoy less.

What impact does gay marriage have on how kids handle sex? Massachusetts, the first state to legalize it, has less teen pregnancy than the country as a whole. Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont, which have also sanctioned same-sex unions, are also far better than average.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 09, 2012, 09:08:41 pm
The polarization of the political parties in American as it currently stands happened before the attempt to impeach President Bill Clinton. The impeachment was merely a chance to act on the perceived power it had attained. No, the rise of polarized politics neatly coincides with the rise to power of one newt blingrinch.

He created the scandal over Speaker Jim Wright's accepting 6K in campaign money from a bundled book deal which forced him to resign while accepting 1MILLION dollar advance to write one later.

Lambasting Democratic opponents over the house banking scandal, but gloss over the fact he bounced 25 checks including one for $9,500 to the IRS in 1990.

Blasting President Bill Clinton for a sexual tryst all the while he was engaging in the same.

No one has poisoned the well faster or more effectively than the blingrinch...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 09, 2012, 10:37:24 pm
Your memory clearly doesn't go back very far...as Jes said earlier...Robert Bork
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 09, 2012, 11:54:32 pm
Robert bork doesn't fall outside the rise of blingrinch it fits inside it.

As for bork himself, at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax. He had stated his desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union. He also held the idea that the executive branch of government had executive supremacy. Something the dick cheney 2-terms agreed with...

Besides, the fact that like alito and scalia he had already made up his mind about Roe v. Wade if a case ever came before the court. He holds the view that the Right to Privacy only covers video rentals.

Borked!

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 10, 2012, 10:45:57 am
Do you have a source for the claim that the Right to Privacy only covers video rentals?

Or are you just talking out of the wrong end of your body again?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 10, 2012, 11:16:42 am
Or are you just talking out of the wrong end of your body again?

Is that to suggest there are times when it is otherwise?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 10, 2012, 09:34:24 pm
From the stupid nomination borking one finds...


During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper.Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.

Borked.

davepe, consider yerself just a little more educated.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 10, 2012, 10:17:10 pm
Robert bork.... holds the view that the Right to Privacy only covers video rentals.

Do you have a source for the claim that the Right to Privacy only covers video rentals?

During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper.Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.

Borked.

davepe, consider yerself just a little more educated.


dave's question quite logically and reasonably followed otto's first post.

otto's "answer, however, is totally devoid of either logic or reason, making no sense at all.  In fact after his initial post claiming that Bork "holds the view that the Right to Privacy only covers video rentals," in his next post he writes that, "Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 10, 2012, 11:04:21 pm
From the stupid nomination borking one finds...

Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by DIRECT LEGISLATION.

Borked.

davepe, consider yerself just a little more educated.



So you lied when you said that Bork believed that Privacy Rights only covered Video rentals.  He actually said they cover all things protected by legislation.

Oddo, you are a fool, but even a fool should be able to read.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2012, 06:20:55 am
dave, you are giving him more credit that he deserves.

Implicit in calling him a liar is the idea that he actually understands what he posts here.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 11, 2012, 08:58:17 am
Otto is confusing me.

I always thought that "davep" was pronounced "Da-Vep" and now otto is saying, "davepee" or "davepe".  I just don't know what to think anymore.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on January 11, 2012, 09:31:46 am
You're confusing me by calling him "Otto"...and not "ottool" or "mittens"...he prefers to be called "mittens"...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 11, 2012, 11:04:45 am
I'm just as glad as you guys that after that tough confirmation fight in 1987 that bork took the time to help pass the Video Rental Protection Act. I know that all you guys woud hate to find out by some Netflix leak that willard romney hasn't rented Atlas Shrugged yet. O r Braveheart for that matter. Or that willard has rented Wall Street thousands of times so that he could remember all of Gordon Gecko's lines.                                                   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 11, 2012, 12:55:00 pm
Mitt comes off as a bit oily, but he would probably be fine as President.  I doubt he would be an advocate of big changes either domestically or internationally.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2012, 01:03:35 pm
Which is the reason to vote for Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 11, 2012, 01:08:55 pm
I'll give that serious consideration.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 11, 2012, 01:08:56 pm
I'm just as glad as you guys that after that tough confirmation fight in 1987 that bork took the time to help pass the Video Rental Protection Act. I know that all you guys woud hate to find out by some Netflix leak that willard romney hasn't rented Atlas Shrugged yet. O r Braveheart for that matter. Or that willard has rented Wall Street thousands of times so that he could remember all of Gordon Gecko's lines.                                                   

Gordon Gecko = John Corzine. You know, the first guy Biden called for help with the economy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 11, 2012, 01:26:49 pm
I am glad that the legislature is dealing with the privacy issue.  That is a lot better than the Supreme Court inventing the right of a woman to kill her child.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 11, 2012, 01:42:58 pm
Or the supreme court inventing corporate personhood as in their ruling Citizens United.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2012, 01:49:32 pm
otto, your ignorance of history is.... well, to be expected.

You need to look back to an 1818 Supreme Court decision for the "invention" of "corporate personhood," an invention allowing lawsuits by and against corporations for things such as enforcing contracts or for damages for injury they might cause.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 11, 2012, 05:22:47 pm
jes

I'm pretty sure whatever the 1818 supreme courtruling that you're referring too had nothing to do with the current century Citizens Unite ruling of corporate money personhood.

Why is it that I get the sense that you in person are less interesting to share a beer with than george will?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2012, 05:44:16 pm
otto, you needn't worry about it otto, I would never waste a beer by drinking it in your company.

But as to the 1818 case, it was  Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 and actually an 1819 case, sorry for the error.

Now, is ther any possibility that you have actually ready either the 1819 decision, or the Citizens United decision, or any of the other intervening Supreme Court decisions addressing the "personhood" of corporations?

And if you have, did you actually understand what you read?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 11, 2012, 06:19:10 pm
Oddo can reed.  He lerned it at University of Wisconsin PS 137.

Just because he doesn't do it, doesn't mean that he can't do it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 12, 2012, 02:38:28 pm
Wow jes, george will must be a close personal, but boring friend. No need to get all sweaty, I'm sure that I can 'will call' that O'douls for you at some mundane corporate place.

I just need to check the attire required for a position on bow ties.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on January 12, 2012, 02:47:24 pm
I'm sure mittens are optional, doofus...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 12, 2012, 02:56:29 pm
Under the category of really, one finds...

The whisper campaign in 2000 against McCain by social conservatives was that the adopted daughter he had from Bangladesh was really an illegitimate black kid his wife had.

Whisper campaign this year seems to be that this presidential election is the most important one since 1860. One has to marvel at conservative process in South Carolina as practiced by low income white folks. No Great Depression or World Wars...its the year South Carolina succeeded from the United States to protect slavery.

Seriously, I hear conservatives in SC whisper that President Obama has not one, but TWO black kids....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 12, 2012, 02:58:33 pm
Wow jes, george will must be a close personal, but boring friend. No need to get all sweaty, I'm sure that I can 'will call' that O'douls for you at some mundane corporate place.

I just need to check the attire required for a position on bow ties.

So I take that as an admission you have not read either of the Supreme Court decisions, and an acknowledgment that you wouldn't understand them if you did read them.

Thanks for the response.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 12, 2012, 03:11:02 pm
South Carolina did not "succeed" from the Union.  They lost the war, Otto.  Matter of fact, they haven't succeeded much in anything other than great golf courses near the ocean.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on January 12, 2012, 03:12:06 pm
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 12, 2012, 03:14:38 pm
Try to stay in character George err....jes.

Say what are the legal underpinnings of clearance Thomas' Citizens United concurring laydown...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 12, 2012, 03:19:03 pm
dave23

Made a funny...Love that movie.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 12, 2012, 04:12:38 pm
Try to stay in character George err....jes.

Say what are the legal underpinnings of clearance Thomas' Citizens United concurring laydown...


otto, if I understood your question, I might think about answering.  (At least I am guessing you intended a question, even if there is no question mark.)

If I thought you would understand an answer, I might even spend the time to type it out.

Since I genuinely do not understand your question, there is no reason to bother with either.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 12, 2012, 04:32:00 pm
Leave Oddo alone.  He is a product of the University of Wisconsin PS 137.  And he was the head of the class.

He is too busy imagining "whisper campaigns" to worry about facts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 12, 2012, 09:16:44 pm
jes....jes...is that you? Your last post put me to sleep...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 12, 2012, 09:32:04 pm
That explains why you didn't answer it.

Just as good.  No sense looking even  more like a fool.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 14, 2012, 04:55:54 pm
http://www.saveourstates.com/2011/poll-americans-want-to-scrap-world-series/

Poll: Americans Want to Scrap World Series
2011/10/27
By Tara Ross

Warning: satire ahead! (For the basics on what the National Popular Vote anti-Electoral College scheme is all about, check out this post.)  -TE

A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer to scrap the World Series. A shocking 68% of Americans instead believe that Major League Baseball should rely upon “total runs scored” during the regular baseball season when deciding who should be crowned the MLB champion. This number is a sharp rise from polls taken a decade ago, but still falls slightly behind the 72% majority that preferred change in 1960. In that year, the Yankees scored a record 55 runs against the Pittsburgh Pirates, but still lost the Series.

Joe Ball, President of FairBaseball, explained the sentiment driving the call for change: “The World Series is fundamentally unfair! One team can score a majority of runs during the course of seven games, yet still lose the championship. Every run should be equal, whether it was obtained in Game 3 or Game 6 of the series. A team should not be able to win the championship simply because it won 4 out of 7 games.”

Ball concluded, “One time in American history the team scoring the most runs failed to win the championship. Outrageously, the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates won the World Series despite scoring only 27 runs to the Yankees’ 55. Moreover, crisis has been narrowly avoided on several other occasions. We must act now before another baseball team is stripped of victory, despite its demonstrated ability to score more runs than its opponent.”

Supporters of the World Series note that the 7-game series was created decades ago because the founders of MLB knew that important principles would be served by such a structure. They wanted to identify the most well-rounded team: Champions should be able to do well in a variety of circumstances; they should not do well only when a particular hitter is matched against a particular pitcher or only when the team is playing in a certain type of stadium. Sam Homer, president of Save Baseball, explained: “MLB should not crown a team as champion simply because it was able to win a few lopsided victories. If we eliminate the World Series, championships could be won by a team that lost the vast majority of its games but racked up dozens of runs when its best player was able to hit home runs on his own home turf.”

Homer concluded that baseball fans should keep the World Series for the same reason that Americans rely upon the Electoral College during presidential elections. Both were created with the same goal in mind: Just as MLB seeks the most well-rounded team for its champion, so the Electoral College awards the presidency to the most well-rounded candidate. The nation’s Founders wanted to ensure that the President would not simply represent big states and urban areas. Instead, a winning candidate should appeal to a variety of states, cities and regions. Our uniquely big and diverse country deserves its unique presidential election system. After all, this system must identify the candidate best suited to represent a cross-section of Americans.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 17, 2012, 10:32:35 pm
Look out below jes...more racist ron paul newsletters are coming out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2012, 05:12:13 am
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANTORUM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-17-19-34-46

Santorum on Romney and Newt....

"Romney once bragged he's even more liberal than Ted Kennedy on social issues.  He's got a lot of money, but he doesn't have the convictions, the authenticity nor the record that is necessary to win this election," Santorum told voters.... "Newt is bold, but he is all over the place," Santorum continued. "Attacking capitalism, supporting capitalism. Against global warming, for global warming. We need someone who is bold and consistent."

What's this?  Santorum sounds like he's getting ready to endorse Paul!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 18, 2012, 09:15:38 am
Look out below jes...more racist ron paul newsletters are coming out.

The word "racist" is thrown around so easily that it no longer carries any weight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2012, 10:24:27 am
It was coming from otto.  Nothing further need be said to reduce its weight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 18, 2012, 10:59:40 am
Paul is consistent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEHhH96T5MI

But in the SC debate, he said he never made that statement.

Shhhhh!!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 18, 2012, 11:01:05 am
I would never claim that Ron Paul wasn't bold.

Offering the idea that Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon is certainly bold.

Stupid, but bold.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2012, 11:04:13 am
Offering the idea that Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon is certainly bold.

I wonder what you would call distorting his actual position and statements.  Doesn't quite sound "bold".... must be some other word that would apply....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 18, 2012, 11:06:10 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEHhH96T5MI
But in the SC debate, he said he never made that statement.

Which debate?  What statement?  Where in the debate?  What do you contend that he said in the debate?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 18, 2012, 11:20:52 am
It wasn't long ago that Oddo's definition of racism was someone that didn't think MLK's birthday should be a national holiday.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 18, 2012, 11:41:03 am
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-denies-saying-wouldn-t-ordered-bin-145411801.html


Spin away, Jes. Spin away...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 18, 2012, 11:43:27 am
You'll have to explain to me how I am distorting Ron Paul's own words.

After the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDvaTqLlZlA


It must suck to be Ron Paul in the age of YouTube and the interwebs....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 09:56:40 am
Santorum wins Iowa after certified vote.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/santorum-wins-iowa-rpi-refuses-to-acknowledge-victory/

RPI says 8 precincts will never be certified. Santorum won those 8 precincts pretty handily at call-in.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on January 19, 2012, 10:15:37 am
Amazing how they can manipulate the system...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 19, 2012, 10:20:06 am
Sorry to say this about your home state ISF, but that's just amateur hour over there that they can't get an accurate vote count.  It's amazing people pay as much attention to the caucuses as they do.

All the primaries in the country ought to be held on one day.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 19, 2012, 11:20:09 am
Exactly.  An incredible amount of time and energy is spent worrying about the results in two meaningless states, New Hampshire and Iowa. 

We should have every primary on the same day.  Or even better, let the state parties chose their delegates, as they did in the past.

Of course, that will never happen.  The media would lose an incredible amount of power and money if they couldn't talk about these meaningless primaries.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 11:43:17 am
Sorry to say this about your home state ISF, but that's just amateur hour over there that they can't get an accurate vote count.  It's amazing people pay as much attention to the caucuses as they do.

All the primaries in the country ought to be held on one day.

And as soon as you do, the Mitt Romney's of either party will ALWAYS be the nominee because there will be no winnowing process.  There will never be any opportunity for anyone to become more familiar with anyone and the nomination will always go to the candidate who has the name recognition and the money to campaign on a national basis.  It will also effectively do away with the vetting process.

And, Dave, I strongly disagree with you about it reducing the role of the media.  If anything, a national primary would increase the role and power of the media because the campaigns would be media campaigns, with no opportunity for someone to catch on after close examination and face to face contact with voters and to emerge in the process.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 19, 2012, 11:59:29 am
Agree with Jes, however, there has got to be a better system.  By the time Colorado has a primary (if they have one instead of a caucus) it's usually well after the winnowing has been done.  At least twice (1996 and 2000 comes to mind) I have voted in the primary for a loser (not the character of the person, but rather the short end of the stick candidate) just to make a point; that I preferred this candidate over the one that was already a shoe-in for the nomination.  Had it been close, I would not have "wasted" the vote, but it just goes to show how meaningless the primaries are in some states.

I did not waste my General Election vote, however, and voted lock-step with the party, because we have a two-party system.  But I can't say I've always liked it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 12:07:29 pm
Sorry to say this about your home state ISF, but that's just amateur hour over there that they can't get an accurate vote count.  It's amazing people pay as much attention to the caucuses as they do.

They can get an extremely accurate vote count. As a matter of fact, they have one.
The problem this year is that RPI doesn't like the winner, so now they refuse to declare a winner after certifying the results.

The reality is that they never certify all the precincts. Some precincts have no one show up. Others have so few people they get thrown in with other precincts.
This is why there are 8 Form Es missing. Because while they called in their precinct results, they filled out a Form E with another precinct.

FYI, Santorum won the called-in vote for those 8 precincts 80-45 over Romney. So that would have given him a 69-vote victory.

The state's volunteers did a magnificent job of running the caucus, and the results are there.

Amateur hour is RPI thumbing their nose at their own volunteers and saying "well, we liked the winner the first time around, so the certified results are inconclusive".

Every contest I've ever encountered ends the same way; when the clock hits :00, the team with the most points on the official scoresheet wins.

That winner is Santorum, by 34 votes. RPI is embarassing themselves right now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 19, 2012, 12:13:56 pm
Iowa, do I understand correctly that at convention it won't matter, because each have 7 pledged delegates, but where it matters is bragging rights.  Romney is saying that he won Iowa and New Hampshire, but that's not true.  It gives other states the impression that there is a clear leader (which I still think there is) when there may not be.

Did I summarize that correctly?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 12:23:37 pm
Bragging rights is correct. Iowa delegates are not binding. In the end, they'll go and vote for the nominee, unless it is a brokered convention, at which point, you had better hope your caucus voters took the time to be delegates to the conventions (county, district, state).

Romney running around telling people he won Iowa has been a joke since caucus night. With an unoffical 8-vote difference, there was no knowing which of them won until the certification process was complete.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 12:31:34 pm
Scoop, the idea that you have to vote for the winning candidate in a primary or your vote is wasted makes no sense.

The electoral process involves not just determining who is nominated to run or who wins an election, it is also about determining what voters want so those who hold office know who they need to make or keep happy in order to stay there, and so others know what positions they need to advance in order to put together a winning coalition in the future.

This is why it makes sense to vote for someone who closely reflects your views and positions, even if that candidate has no chance whatsoever of winning.

As to states late in the process being unimportant, the California primary was the last one in 1968, and, had it not been for Sirhan Sirhan, it would also have been crucial in determining the Democratic nominee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 19, 2012, 12:51:53 pm
Scoop, the idea that you have to vote for the winning candidate in a primary or your vote is wasted makes no sense.

...

This is why it makes sense to vote for someone who closely reflects your views and positions, even if that candidate has no chance whatsoever of winning.


I didn't say I had to vote for the winning candidate in the primary. I did vote for the person who closely reflects my views and values and positions despite the fact that they had, by the time Colorado got to vote, absolutely no chance of winning and there there was clearly a national candidate already presumed and my vote would have made no difference on his inevitable nomination.  That was the "waste".

I did not "waste" my vote in the General election on a candidate that wouldn't have stood a chance.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 01:21:41 pm
If the candidate reflects your views, it is not wasting a vote, regardless whether the candidate has a chance or not.

The odds that your single vote will determine the winner or lose in an election is exceedingly remote.

The chance that your vote for a candidate with clearly identified positions which close match yours will help influence the positions office holders representing you, whether the guy you voted for or not won, is a near certainty.

Since 1976, I have voted for the Libertarian Party candidate for president in every election but one (Bob Barr simply was not tolerable), and I have never felt my vote was wasted.  It instead helped to set out a block of voters with very clearly defined positions which needed to be addressed for any future candidate to hope to get our support.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 19, 2012, 01:35:13 pm
And as soon as you do, the Mitt Romney's of either party will ALWAYS be the nominee because there will be no winnowing process.  There will never be any opportunity for anyone to become more familiar with anyone and the nomination will always go to the candidate who has the name recognition and the money to campaign on a national basis.  It will also effectively do away with the vetting process.

I guess my reactions to that are:

1.  Don't the "inevitable" candidates like Mitt Romney usually wind up winning anyway?  Other than Jimmy Carter, there haven't been a lot of out of nowhere candidates to win the nomination since they've switched to the current primary process.  And I'm not sure a system capable of giving us Jimmy Carter speaks very well of the current system.

2.  I'm a Romney guy anyway, so more power to a new process if that increases the chances of the best candidate winning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 19, 2012, 01:37:23 pm
I understand your principle in the matter and while I agree, I don't find it practical, in most circumstances.  However, I am afraid that this year I may have to vote that way simply as a vote against the likely nomination. I'm not sure that I can hold my nose and vote the party way this time. In the General Election, that is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 19, 2012, 02:03:27 pm
One other thing about the current process is that it eliminated a very competent governor early on (Pawlenty) and two very competent governors after two states (Perry and Huntsman) while leaving us with the erratic Newt Gingrich, a guy in Santorum who lost his last race by 17 points, and Ron Paul.   
 
Any of those three governors would be much better presidents and much better candidates to face Obama than the group of non-Romney's we have now.  Unfortunately they didn't play as well to the far social conservative base as Santorum or the Talk Radio/Fox News base as Gingrich.

I don't think that speaks very well for the current process either.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 03:02:59 pm
I guess my reactions to that are:

1.  Don't the "inevitable" candidates like Mitt Romney usually wind up winning anyway?  Other than Jimmy Carter, there haven't been a lot of out of nowhere candidates to win the nomination since they've switched to the current primary process.  And I'm not sure a system capable of giving us Jimmy Carter speaks very well of the current system.

Look back at who the Democratic alternatives were to Carter.  He may well have been their best option.  But Carter is not the only one to have come out of that process who would have stood no chance otherwise.  Carter, Obama, Dole and Reagan would also be added to the list, as would McCain, and Dukakis.

I guess my reactions to that are:
2.  I'm a Romney guy anyway, so more power to a new process if that increases the chances of the best candidate winning.

That sort of assumes that the candidate who would win a national nomination campaign would be the best candidate, and it also assumes that Romney is the best candidate.  I would disagree on both counts.

As to the process eliminating competent governors, that does not mean they would have been competent candidates, or competent presidents, or that their presence in a national primary would make any difference.

If you had a single national primary, Paul would still be assured to get his 15-20% base.  If Pawlenty and Romney and Huntsman were also in the mix, along with the others, and they all fragmented the vote, just what would be accomplished?  You would have no winnowing, no vetting, no one with a majority, and most likely a brokered convention, perhaps even one in which Paul would have a larger block of votes than anyone else.

Is that REALLY what you want?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 19, 2012, 03:19:00 pm
Quote
One other thing about the current process is that it eliminated a very competent governor early on (Pawlenty) and two very competent governors after two states (Perry and Huntsman) while leaving us with the erratic Newt Gingrich, a guy in Santorum who lost his last race by 17 points, and Ron Paul.   
 
Any of those three governors would be much better presidents and much better candidates to face Obama than the group of non-Romney's we have now.  Unfortunately they didn't play as well to the far social conservative base as Santorum or the Talk Radio/Fox News base as Gingrich.

I don't think that speaks very well for the current process either.

Well said.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 19, 2012, 03:26:09 pm
Look back at who the Democratic alternatives were to Carter.  He may well have been their best option. 

Actually there were some pretty accomplished politicians in the Democratic field in '76.  Jerry Brown was governor of California.  Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen, Scoop Jackson, Sargent Shriver, and Robert K. Byrd were all part of the field that year, and every one of them finished their political careers with pretty impressive resumes.
 
Carter won the nomination because he beat everyone else to Iowa, which didn't become important until he won it that year.  If he wasn't really the first politician to realize how important Iowa could be, it's hard to imagine a former obscure Georgia governor would have finished ahead of some pretty respected Democratic politicians at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976)

Quote
Carter, Obama, Dole and Reagan would also be added to the list, as would McCain, and Dukakis.

Seriously?  Reagan and Dole were the clear front runners heading into '80 and '96 . . . pretty much filling the "inevitable" role Romney has right now.  Obama was one of the Top 2 heading into '08.  He could just as easily started Obamamania in a national primary as he could have with the way things are now.  McCain was at least one of the Top 2 or 3 in a field that didn't have a clear favorite, and the same was the case for Dukakis. 

None of those guys were people who came out of national obscurity to beat some inevitable favorite only because we have a fragmented primary system.  Their chances wouldn't have changed one bit under a national primary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 19, 2012, 03:30:50 pm
The problem extends far beyond the primary procedures.  Perry largely lost out because he was one of the worst debaters in the world.  The fact that debating skills have no relation to presidential competency didn't matter in the slightest.

Of course, competency is not the only issue.  Huntsman seemed to be a very competent person, but he was the last person I wanted on the Republican ticket.    Obama has been very competent in getting his policies implemented.  Unfortunately, those policies have been devastating to the country.  On many issues, Huntsman was as bad as Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 04:01:57 pm
One other thing about the current process is that it eliminated a very competent governor early on (Pawlenty) and two very competent governors after two states (Perry and Huntsman) while leaving us with the erratic Newt Gingrich, a guy in Santorum who lost his last race by 17 points, and Ron Paul.   
 
Any of those three governors would be much better presidents and much better candidates to face Obama than the group of non-Romney's we have now.  Unfortunately they didn't play as well to the far social conservative base as Santorum or the Talk Radio/Fox News base as Gingrich.

I don't think that speaks very well for the current process either.

Yeah, I could see where a guy who gambled his entire campaign war chest on one straw poll would be considered to have great judgement and decision-making skills compared to the candidates that...you know...didn't.

I could also see where a guy who spent the first 6 months of the campaign ignoring and insulting one of the 50 states of the union he aspires to govern would be a better candidate than the ones that...you know...didn't.

As for Perry, exactly what did you see in the debates that spoke "Presidential" to you? Bachmann had a better grasp of foreign policy...

The 4 candidates left are the 4 candidates who have proven

1. They can organize and hire staff well
2. They can raise and manage money
3. They have a knowledge and understanding of the wide array of issues across government
4. They have a message that resonates with a cross-section of GOP voters

That is how the field was winnowed. Anyone lamenting the early exits of Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, etc haven't been paying attention.
There's a reason those folks are gone. They weren't very good candidates.

The ones that are left have proven themselves the best options to face Obama.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 19, 2012, 04:19:34 pm
The biggest problem is that no one but the hard-core Republicans (and Democrats) is engaged enough to care about the primaries...so the 10% of the population on each side that makes up their base essentially selects the candidate.  If the 80% in the middle were engaged in the primaries, we'd see a completely different outcome. 

If the Republicans end up nominating Santorum or Gingrich, we're going to see just how out of touch the Republican base is with the average person.  It's going to be a massacre in November.  Obama will destroy either of them.  Neither will pick up independent votes at all...Santorum is strongly disliked by anyone who isn't a social conservative, and Gingrich is strongly disliked by just about everyone--even many of his supporters.  But at least the Republican base can pat themselves on the back for nominating their "true conservative".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 19, 2012, 04:32:43 pm
Quote
If the Republicans end up nominating Santorum or Gingrich, we're going to see just how out of touch the Republican base is with the average person.  It's going to be a massacre in November.  Obama will destroy either of them.  Neither will pick up independent votes at all...Santorum is strongly disliked by anyone who isn't a social conservative, and Gingrich is strongly disliked by just about everyone--even many of his supporters.  But at least the Republican base can pat themselves on the back for nominating their "true conservative".

Even better said.

Ever since Pawlenty dropped out, all of the GOP candidates other than Romney are unelectable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 19, 2012, 04:44:20 pm
I think Huntsman was electable too...probably more than Romney.  I feel like he had the same appeal to right-leaning independents, and more appeal to left-leaning independents and right-leaning Democrats.  Plus, serving in Obama's administration would've limited a lot of the attacks they could have made--Obama wouldn't have been able to attack him on anything related to foreign policy without making himself look bad in the process.

But Huntsman's campaign just wasn't run very well, and I don't think his heart was in it this time.  Maybe in four years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 04:55:40 pm
The biggest problem is that no one but the hard-core Republicans (and Democrats) is engaged enough to care about the primaries...so the 10% of the population on each side that makes up their base essentially selects the candidate.  If the 80% in the middle were engaged in the primaries, we'd see a completely different outcome. 

If the Republicans end up nominating Santorum or Gingrich, we're going to see just how out of touch the Republican base is with the average person.  It's going to be a massacre in November.  Obama will destroy either of them.  Neither will pick up independent votes at all...Santorum is strongly disliked by anyone who isn't a social conservative, and Gingrich is strongly disliked by just about everyone--even many of his supporters.  But at least the Republican base can pat themselves on the back for nominating their "true conservative".

Santorum may be strongly disliked by YOU, but his approval ratings are higher than anyone but Romney's of the candidates that are left.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152081/Romney-Santorum-Lead-GOP-Positive-Intensity.aspx

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 19, 2012, 06:06:36 pm
That's because he's been debating other conservatives in a contest to capture the Republican nomination. 

A Santorum nomination is probably such a wet dream for the Obama campaign that they won't even let themselves dream about it, lest they become too giddy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 19, 2012, 06:26:10 pm
Agree on Huntsman, by the way. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 19, 2012, 07:12:23 pm
The Republicans best shot is to draft Hillary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 08:53:07 pm
Sadly, that isn't inaccurate Curt.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 08:54:24 pm
Oh, and if I had to drink every time Ron Paul said "Liberty" in this debate, I'd be dead of alcohol poisoning...

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 09:13:26 pm
The problem extends far beyond the primary procedures.  Perry largely lost out because he was one of the worst debaters in the world.  The fact that debating skills have no relation to presidential competency didn't matter in the slightest.

Appearing to be either drunk or seriously under the influence of pain meds when he spoke in New Hampshire in November didn't help him either.  In fact there is relatively little to indicate that the guy really would have been competent as president, considering that his experience was very similar to that of Bush the 2nd, who did not show himself to be tremendously competent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 09:16:22 pm
I could also see where a guy who spent the first 6 months of the campaign ignoring and insulting one of the 50 states of the union he aspires to govern would be a better candidate than the ones that...you know...didn't.

Somehow I suspect that the only folks who felt Huntsman insulted Iowa were the ones in Iowa.

He made a tactical g-amble which failed, but that is not saying he "insulted" the Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 09:17:58 pm
If the Republicans end up nominating Santorum or Gingrich, we're going to see just how out of touch the Republican base is with the average person.  It's going to be a massacre in November.  Obama will destroy either of them.

Obama would have even lost to Bachman.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 19, 2012, 09:20:37 pm
Appearing to be either drunk or seriously under the influence of pain meds when he spoke in New Hampshire in November didn't help him either.  In fact there is relatively little to indicate that the guy really would have been competent as president, considering that his experience was very similar to that of Bush the 2nd, who did not show himself to be tremendously competent.

The difference, of course, is that Perry is an actual conservative on most issues.  Bush was not, on many issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 19, 2012, 09:51:19 pm
Jes,  Huntsman had a string of quotes belittling the state, including one where he said "Iowa picks corn, NH picks Presidents".
If he had merely not bothered to drop by and campaign, we'd all have thought more of him for not wasting our time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 10:39:13 pm
Actually there were some pretty accomplished politicians in the Democratic field in '76.  Jerry Brown was governor of California.  Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen, Scoop Jackson, Sargent Shriver, and Robert K. Byrd were all part of the field that year, and every one of them finished their political careers with pretty impressive resumes.
 
Carter won the nomination because he beat everyone else to Iowa, which didn't become important until he won it that year.  If he wasn't really the first politician to realize how important Iowa could be, it's hard to imagine a former obscure Georgia governor would have finished ahead of some pretty respected Democratic politicians at the time.

JR, for some reason I get the impression that you were not in any meaningfully way around in 1976.  I worked as a volunteer for the Bayh campaign in New Hampshire.... and he was NOT an "accomplished politician" -- Dan Quayle beat him for re-election in 1980, and he was close to clueless in his presidential campaign.

Brown only entered the race well after it was underway and was essentially a "Not Jimmy Carter" candidate, who was known outside of California as "Governor Moonbeam" for being more than a tad outside the mainstream, and perhaps was best known for dating Linda Rondstadt.  (Brown had only been governor for 13 months at the time of the first presidential primary in 1976.)

Byrd was a favorite-son candidate only, not running outside of West Virginia, but running there to assure he had a voice at the convention.  Shriver was lightweight who always worked in government, but never held elective office.

Bentson and Scoop Jackson were the only serious candidates other than Carter, and both put together pretty poor campaigns.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 10:40:17 pm
Jes,  Huntsman had a string of quotes belittling the state, including one where he said "Iowa picks corn, NH picks Presidents".

I had forgotten about that one, but I still don't consider it anything close to being an insult.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 19, 2012, 10:47:13 pm
The difference, of course, is that Perry is an actual conservative on most issues.  Bush was not, on many issues.

Perry was as willing to put government in bed with business as Bush, as eager to have government intrude in private lives (Guardasil) as Obama, and as complicit in government intervention in the family as Janet Reno (after Perry's Department of Children's Services officials illegally removed Mormon children from their families in 2008, and had the federal courts slap them down for it, Perry did absolutely nothing to change the department's policies or leadership).  Just not what I would consider a genuine conservative.  True enough he was eager to thump his Bible to explain how "god" told him he was right about all of those things, but that still doesn't constitute conservatism to me.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 20, 2012, 07:32:01 am
Just what is a "genuine conservative"?  Is the size and role of government really the key issue?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 20, 2012, 08:01:07 am
Just what is a "genuine conservative"?  Is the size and role of government really the key issue?

Play, since I was the one who used the term, and since the definition will vary from person to person, I will answer only for myself.

To me, the size and role of government are central issues in determining whether a person is a "genuine conservative," as would also be the pace or degree to which a person would either support or fail to oppose rapid or abrupt change from a clearly working status quo.  I have always had trouble seeing Gingrich as a genuine conservative when the guy quite regularly espouses major, abrupt changes in society and government, and not just a change back to something which had worked but a change to something which he merely hopes will work.  I am not saying that is bad, or that Gingriches ideas are bad (nor am I saying they are good), but merely that he has never really seemed to be a genuine conservative.  (And I am not saying that conservatism is always good.)

I also believe that a "genuine conservative" is one who supports more individual responsibility and greater freedom (even when that freedom includes the freedom to cause harm to oneself) though is personally unlikely to dabble in those freedoms which that person believes should be available to others.

I think a "genuine conservative" would oppose DOMA, while also likely being extremely squemish on a personal level about gay marriage, and quite resistant to any federal legislation which would recognize or require states to allow gay marriage.

At the same time, considering how long we have had oppressive laws on the books criminalizing drug use and ****, a "genuine conservative" would not move into the libertarian camp and support legalizing either.  That would be far too much change and far too quickly for a "genuine conservative" to support.

I think a "genuine conservative" would support lowering federal income taxes and flattening the system to eliminate most of the various different treatments of revenue and investment in the system, but would still only want tinker with the current system instead of going to a sales tax approach or a value added approach or any other major, abrupt change.

And Perry, at least to me, seriously diverged from what would be a "genuine conservative" in the three areas I mentioned -- government involvement in business, new government intrusion in traditional family decisions, and new government interference in personal health decisions.  Those to me are not at all "genuine conservative" approaches.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 20, 2012, 12:35:44 pm
You could also ruin your liver if you drank every time Newt Gingrich took credit for something he had no part in.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 20, 2012, 12:41:58 pm
In fairness, I don't need a politician for that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 21, 2012, 06:01:11 pm
Sounds like the wife's claims didn't hurt Gingrich very much.  Gingrich is the winner in South Carolina.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 21, 2012, 07:29:27 pm
The claims, and Newt's response to them, HELPED.

It appears that South Carolina Republican primary voters essentially want the nominee to be someone who in debates with Obama might actually cross the stage to poke his thumb in Obama's eye, and Newt is the one they can see possibly doing that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 21, 2012, 08:43:38 pm
Unfortunately, unlike the primaries, there are very few presidential debates.  Not a lot of chances for Gingrich to show his debating skills.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 21, 2012, 08:45:30 pm
Not a problem.  He has his record to run on.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 21, 2012, 08:57:26 pm
This whole process is starting to get interesting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 21, 2012, 10:35:05 pm
Gingrich's record will be a help for him, but he has a lot of baggage to get around.

It looks like the wife-interview isn't going to be much of a problem for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 21, 2012, 10:43:56 pm
Had trouble with a parent a few years back.  One of the other administrators said to me, "Be careful.  She has cow eyes."  I said, "What?" 

"When I was a kid working in the farm feed lot, my dad always told me to watch for the cows with the huge bulging eyes that looked wild, because those cows are nuts.  And that woman has cow eyes."

The other day they showed a picture of Newt with his second wife; it was a lead on CNN.  That woman has cow eyes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 21, 2012, 10:47:59 pm
I think this is the picture I was thinking of:  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/gingrichs-daughters-defend-him-ahead-of-abc-interview-with-ex-wife/?iref=allsearch
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 22, 2012, 01:46:02 pm
There is worry about the ads Obama can run linking Newt to the Government shutdown in the 90's but the way the attitudes have changed regarding the out of control government spending  the shutdown just may be a positive.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 22, 2012, 02:00:43 pm
I agree.  The Government shutdown in the 90s is likely to be a plus for him.  But the money that he took as an "consultant" to Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is going to cause him a lot of problems.  As is his teaming up with Pelosi over Global Warming, and his initial support for Cap and Trade.

the biggest problem I have with him is that he is an exponent of exactly what he accused others of being - an advocate of right wing social engineering.  Many of his recommendations are just that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2012, 02:01:51 pm
Newt offers the potential of being an absolutely terrible president, one of the worst ever, and yet given the current mood of the electorate, all of the things which might lead to him being terrible might well work in his favor.

It is hard to under-estimate the anti-Washington, anti-incumbent sentiment this election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 22, 2012, 02:58:39 pm
Hard to imagine circumstances where Gingrich could be a worse President than Obama, or Clinton, or Carter.  Or, for that matter, worse than Dole, McCain or Romney would be.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2012, 04:37:33 pm
Worse, or for that matter terrible, are both matters of opinion, but the reason I think Newt would have the potential to be monumentally terrible is because, as he said in the debates last week, he tends to think in grandiouse terms.  Someone like Carter could make lots of bad decisions on things and be ineffective in carrying out the functions of his office, but he was limited by how terrible he could be just because of the limitation of his efforts.

Newt is not someone who really sees any limits, either in what he can or should attempt, or what the federal government should.

He at times talks about limited government, but many of his ideas are truly antithetical to that concept.  He is someone who is inclined to high risk moves, in the hope of even higher rewards if the risk pays off, and sometimes it does.

The reason Icarus of Greek mythology plunged to his death was not because he was incompetently flapping his wings and muddling along (ala Jimmy Carter, and that really is not fair to Carter -- Carter did more for the cause of economic deregulation than any other president, including Reagan), but because of his grandiousity, and flying too close to the sun.

Newt is certainly familiar with the story, but appears never to have caught the message.

Add to that the guy's erratic conduct and positions, his ability to p*ss off those he would need to get anything done (a great many of whom he has already p*ssed off), his inability to focus and execute,  his inability to attract and hold a cadre of people who truly believe in him and are willing to protect him, and you have the potential for true disaster.

All of that said, I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 22, 2012, 05:54:25 pm
I'm particularly worried about Newt's foreign policy which is much too aggressive even for me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 22, 2012, 06:12:49 pm
Being a Romney supporter I couldn't disagree more Dave.  Newt's strengths to me are in his ability to toss meat to the base and articulate the conservative message.  Romney lacks in those areas but his ability to actually do the job is his best asset.  Everyone who knows him says he oozes leadership and the ability to make good decisions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on January 22, 2012, 06:13:45 pm
You're a Romney guy, Robb?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on January 22, 2012, 06:24:43 pm
You're a Romney guy, Robb?

He does what he's told to do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 22, 2012, 06:33:27 pm
Quote
Everyone who knows him says he oozes leadership and the ability to make good decisions.

And just about the complete opposite is said by anyone who's worked with Gingrich.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 22, 2012, 06:37:23 pm
JR, I understand that Gingrich has warts and I have serious concerns about him, but your brush seems rather broad.  This guy was elected by his fellow Republican Congressmen to be Speaker of the House.  No small accomplishment and not an accomplishment requiring no organizing and leadership skills.  His decisions in his private life leave a lot to be desired, but I don't know if it carries into politics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 22, 2012, 07:10:11 pm
As I said above, Gingrich tends to advocate right wing social engineering from time to time.  I would hope that the conservative house will keep him in check in this area.

He is certainly not my ideal candidate (none of them running approach my idea of an ideal conservative) but he seems to be the best of those still standing.  My first choice would have been Perry.  After that would probably be Cain or Santorum.  But at least he is better than Huntsman or Romney, neither of which I consider to be conservative, or Ron Paul, whom I consider to be a lunatic on many foreign policy issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2012, 08:30:09 pm
As I said above, Gingrich tends to advocate right wing social engineering from time to time.

You mean there are some times when he is NOT advocating right wing social engineering?

I really don't mean that as a joke, but quite seriously.  And not just with his newest latest and greatest ideas to transform America (Gingrich has to hate the fact that Obama stole that phrase), but also with much of what Gingrich and many on the right push -- such as the never ending war on drugs.  Another nice right wing social engineering idea is English as the national language, which appeals to his base, but is utter foolishness, as I have discussed with you before.

I would hope that the conservative house will keep him in check in this area.

Wouldn't happen.  The "conservatives" in Congress did nothing to keep Bush in check on his prescription drug plan or No Child Left Behind expanding the federal government's role in education or it the laughably named Patriot Act or in his international interventionism.  When the president and the party controlling Congress are the same, you are most likely to have extreme foolishness passed without any real examination of it.  One more reason why a Gingrich presidency has the potential to be one of the most terrible ever.

But at least he is better than... Ron Paul, whom I consider to be a lunatic on many foreign policy issues.

Yea, it is lunacy end our defense of the world at our expense, to support free trade not only for its economic benefits but also for its value in promoting peace, and to want to end our intervention in the politics or affairs of other nations.  Loony stuff there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 22, 2012, 10:50:09 pm
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore Cletus.  The way you stalk me is creepy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 22, 2012, 10:52:19 pm
Gingrich was elected speaker and then pushed from office for being such a poor leader.  The man has talents, but they are not suited for the Presidency.  The narrative about Romney not being conservative is funny and just that, a narrative.  He is as or more conservative than Gingrich or Santorum. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 22, 2012, 11:06:58 pm
Depends on the issue. No way is Romney as conservative as Santorum on the values issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 22, 2012, 11:08:19 pm
Gingrich led the fight to cut back welfare, and was quite successful in spite of the democrats and the media.  Gingrich led the fight to balance the budget and was quite successful in spite of the democrats and the media.  It is hard to see him as a poor leader.  When you look at the Republicans that are trashing him now, they are mostly liberal republicans that were against the successes that he achieved.

It is lunacy to say that there is no reason to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  On this issue, Ron Paul is a lunatic.

His views on going back to the Gold Standard are also vague to the point of being mere platitudes.  Has he ever said exactly how that would work in a country that has free trade?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2012, 11:44:04 pm
Depends on the issue. No way is Romney as conservative as Santorum on the values issues.

Perhaps not as right wing, but that is not necessarily the same as conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 22, 2012, 11:52:17 pm
When you look at the Republicans that are trashing him now, they are mostly liberal republicans that were against the successes that he achieved.

The criticism of Newt is pretty much universal among everyone who ever worked with him.  Even those who worked with him and still support him (and there are VERY few of those), they acknowledge the criticism, but simply say they support him despite those admitted problems.  The criticism is not a result of opposing the successes he achieved.


It is lunacy to say that there is no reason to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  On this issue, Ron Paul is a lunatic.

No, dave, it is lunacy to say Paul contends there is "no reason to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."  He acknowledges there are reasons.  He simply points out that the effort to prevent it would likely do far more harm than good, that such efforts would likely fail, and that we have dealt with other nations which were even more hostile toward us than Iran and which had far more nukes which they could actually deliver to the US, and we did so peaceably.


His views on going back to the Gold Standard are also vague to the point of being mere platitudes.  Has he ever said exactly how that would work in a country that has free trade?

Yes, so have plenty of economists.  It would not be hard at all.  You simply peg your currency to something real and then don't get to run the printing presses.  It has nothing to do with whether a nation does or doesn't have free trade.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 23, 2012, 01:09:39 am
What should we peg the currency to?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 23, 2012, 07:43:14 am
Yes Dave those are the highlights and I give him full credit but the rest was a disaster.  He basically had his fellow Republicans in damage control on a near daily basis due to the stuff he said and did including breaking house ethics rules and being forced to resign in disgrace.  Since then he has peddled influence to the highest bidder lobbying on K street which in my opinion is one of the biggest problems we have in DC.  Tico, which social issue is Santorum to the right of Romney?  Yes Santorum has not changed on abortion but so what,  a lot of people have changed their views on that issue. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 23, 2012, 08:19:28 am
JR, I understand that Gingrich has warts and I have serious concerns about him, but your brush seems rather broad.  This guy was elected by his fellow Republican Congressmen to be Speaker of the House.  No small accomplishment and not an accomplishment requiring no organizing and leadership skills.  His decisions in his private life leave a lot to be desired, but I don't know if it carries into politics.

Curt, there have been just tons of stories about how he was a really poor manager as house speaker and how disorganized and tempermental he was.  Robert Novak's memoir painted a really poor picture of him as speaker.  People like Tom Coburn, Jim Talent, and Dick Armey have talked a lot about how bad it was to serve under him. 

There's no doubt he's a great visionary.  He was the only one prior to '94 who ever saw a path to the Republicans winning the House majority, and he pretty much willed the Republicans in that direction.  But there's a big difference between having great vision and ideas and having the ability to implement them, and he's just too erratic and undisciplined to do that.  I think he'd be just an awful president, and I'm not sure I'd even vote for him even if he is the Republican nominee.  He'd probably do more damage to the Republican brand than Bush did even if he did get elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 23, 2012, 10:01:38 am
This should end well for the TSA...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/report-tsa-detains-sen-rand-paul-in-nashville/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 23, 2012, 10:13:40 am
heh, since I now have a titanium knee, I will have to have Helga pat me down in the future.  Really, really looking forward to having somebody probing me.

Of course, it's been so long maybe I'll...

nevermind.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 23, 2012, 10:24:25 am
JR, Speakers of House attract enemies, even from within one's party.  Boehner has enemies.  Pelosi?  Puleeze.  Half the Democrats and all the Republicans hate her.  Gingrich has warts and many of his party wanted him out because some of the marital stuff was distracting, especially in light of how they had just impeached the President for similar indiscretions.

Gingrich is not my candidate, but next fall's election will be based on how the economy is going.  If the Republican nominee keeps hammering on that and failed promises, and the President attacks character, the Republican has a good chance.   Attacking character didn't work for Bush I, Dole, Gore, or Kerry, doubt if it will again.  Didn't work to cast Obama as a Muslim, a unNatural citizen, or a Communist.   Americans want their home prices to quit falling, their taxes to stabilize, their paychecks to be in their box at work, and to see hope in a future.  They'll elect anyone who they think gives them a better chance of that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2012, 10:25:56 am
What should we peg the currency to?

Gold.  Silver.  Both.  Wheat.  A basket average of commodities.  Within reason, it doesn't matter a great deal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 23, 2012, 11:06:26 am
Yes Dave those are the highlights and I give him full credit but the rest was a disaster.  He basically had his fellow Republicans in damage control on a near daily basis due to the stuff he said and did including breaking house ethics rules and being forced to resign in disgrace.  Since then he has peddled influence to the highest bidder lobbying on K street which in my opinion is one of the biggest problems we have in DC.  Tico, which social issue is Santorum to the right of Romney?  Yes Santorum has not changed on abortion but so what,  a lot of people have changed their views on that issue. 

Robb - I am sure that you are politically aware enough to know that the courts later found the charges against Gingrich to be baseless.  What he was accused of doing was perfectly legal and was not a violation of house ethics rules.  He was merely railroaded by the democrats and the press, and the republicans threw him under the bus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 23, 2012, 11:07:29 am
Gold.  Silver.  Both.  Wheat.  A basket average of commodities.  Within reason, it doesn't matter a great deal.

Exactly how would you do that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 23, 2012, 11:31:51 am
Dave,  he lied to the committee investigating him which is more worrisome for me than the charges.  He excoriated the President for having an affair while himself having an affair.  I can't believe we've gotten to a point in this country where that alone isn't disqualifying.  Then he decided to make his money the really old fashioned way.  Sell his influence to the highest bidder.  I don't see anything in his resume that would allow me to vote for him.  If not Romney then Santorum I could get behind but never Gingrich.  He would ruin the Republican brand for my lifetime. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2012, 12:08:50 pm
Exactly how would you do that?

It has been done before in this country, has been done by hundreds of other countries, and is still done by some countries.  I trust the detailed mechanics of the process can be worked out largely by looking at what we have done before.  I have never really seen anyone raise any questions about whether the details can be resolved to do it, particularly since it has been done before.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2012, 12:10:23 pm
Gingrich led the fight to cut back welfare, and was quite successful in spite of the democrats and the media.  Gingrich led the fight to balance the budget and was quite successful in spite of the democrats and the media.  It is hard to see him as a poor leader.

(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/401007_10150487903950942_175868780941_9187935_1511040903_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2012, 12:20:44 pm
Dave,  he lied to the committee investigating him which is more worrisome for me than the charges.

On what?  What lies are you talking about?

He excoriated the President for having an affair while himself having an affair.

You sound like a Clinton defender here.  He did not attack Clinton for an affair.  He attack Clinton for PERJURY while in office.  The fact that the perjury was about an affair was not really relevant.  Clinton committed perjury for his own personal (financial and marital) and political benefit while in office and then abused the power of his office to help reinforce that perjury and to prevent it from coming to light.  THAT was what Gingrich ripped Clinton for.

I can't believe we've gotten to a point in this country where that alone isn't disqualifying. 

Where having an affair is disqualifying?  Please.  Be real.


Then he decided to make his money the really old fashioned way.  Sell his influence to the highest bidder.

So far there is little more than speculation to suggest that he was lobbying.

He would ruin the Republican brand for my lifetime. 

Though I have tremendous reservations about Gingrich and believe he has the potential to be one of the worst presidents ever, I doubt he would "ruin the Republican brand for your lifetime," and that is even if you have a very short lifetime.  Gingrich is the one candidate who would help the Republicans in a very big way with Hispanic voters.  The rest of the party seems willing to write them off, alienate them, and condemn the party back to minority status as a result of demographic shifts which would bury the Republicans if Hispanics strongly and permanently bond with Democrats.

As to Santorum.... if I were the deciding vote and it were Santorum or Obama for four more years, goofus would be a two term president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 23, 2012, 12:33:10 pm
Newt Gingrich.  Just as unelectable as Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on January 23, 2012, 12:50:30 pm
LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 23, 2012, 01:09:01 pm
On what?  What lies are you talking about?


Read here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm 

Cole said he had concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him.

You sound like a Clinton defender here.  He did not attack Clinton for an affair.  He attack Clinton for PERJURY while in office.  The fact that the perjury was about an affair was not really relevant.  Clinton committed perjury for his own personal (financial and marital) and political benefit while in office and then abused the power of his office to help reinforce that perjury and to prevent it from coming to light.  THAT was what Gingrich ripped Clinton for.

I knew you would say that.  In addition to lying under oath Gingrich also decried the lack of morals by the President at the time.  The height of hypocrisy.

Where having an affair is disqualifying?  Please.  Be real.

Having an affair while decrying the lack of values of the President while carrying on an affair is again, the height of hypocrisy.

So far there is little more than speculation to suggest that he was lobbying.

Freddie Mac executives were asked why they hired him, what he was expected to do for them.  Their answer?  To use his influence to help promote their business model to conservatives.  The Washington Post fact checker gave him 2 pinocchios for misleading on his lobbying.  So I would say there is more than a "little" to suggest he was lobbying/influence peddling/call it what you want.

Though I have tremendous reservations about Gingrich and believe he has the potential to be one of the worst presidents ever, I doubt he would "ruin the Republican brand for your lifetime," and that is even if you have a very short lifetime.  Gingrich is the one candidate who would help the Republicans in a very big way with Hispanic voters.  The rest of the party seems willing to write them off, alienate them, and condemn the party back to minority status as a result of demographic shifts which would bury the Republicans if Hispanics strongly and permanently bond with Democrats.

Your opinion which differs from mine.

As to Santorum.... if I were the deciding vote and it were Santorum or Obama for four more years, goofus would be a two term president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 23, 2012, 01:22:39 pm
This is some fun stuff from several sources. 

A Former Freddie Mac Official Said Gingrich Advised Them To Tell Republicans That The Organization Was Not Explicitly Government Backed In Order To Keep Them From Losing Funding. “Officials said Mr. Gingrich was brought in to help Freddie Mac hone its message to conservative audiences. One person recalled that Mr. Gingrich advised them, for instance, to tell Republicans that the organization was not explicitly government backed — and, at the time, it was not — but also not as freewheeling as Wall Street banks, occupying a responsible middle ground.” [New York Times, 11/16/11] 

During His First Stint With Freddie Mac, Gingrich’s Primary Contact Was Chief Lobbyist Mitchell Delk, With Whom He Helped Craft An Effort To Get The Bush Administration To Expand A Home Ownership Program. “His primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement. During that period, Gingrich consulted with Freddie Mac executives on a program to expand home ownership, an idea Delk said he pitched to President George W. Bush’s White House.” [Bloomberg News, 11/16/11]

GINGRICH PRAISED THE FREDDIE MAC BUSINESS MODEL 

In 2007, Gingrich Praised The Freddie Mac Business Model And Warned Against Changing It, In Direct Contrast With His Current Assertion That He Warned The Mortgage Company Of Its “Insane” Business Practices. “Former House speaker Newt Gingrich highlighted the benefits of Freddie Mac's business model in 2007 -- a position that appears to contradict his assertion that he warned the mortgage company of its ‘insane’ business practices. In an interview posted in an archived version of Freddie Mac's website, Gingrich discusses the so-called government-supported enterprise model, dubbed GSEs. ‘While we need to improve the regulations of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself,’ he said. He went on to praise Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's ‘important contribution’ to homeownership.” [USA Today, 12/1/11] 

In 2007, Gingrich Credited Freddie Mac With Creating “A Much More Liquid And Stable Housing Finance System.” “That's not the tone Gingrich takes in the Freddie Mac interview in which he touts the GSE model. ‘There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,’ he said. ‘And it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownerhip and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system that we would have had without the GSEs.’” [USA Today, 12/1/11]

Associated Press: Gingrich Was Hired In 2006 By Freddie Mac To Use His Influence To Keep Government Regulation Against Freddie Mac From Gaining Support In Congress. “Efforts to tighten government regulation were gaining support on Capitol Hill, and Freddie Mac was fighting back. According to internal Freddie Mac documents obtained by the AP, Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) spent the evening in hard-to-obtain seats near the Nationals dugout with Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin and four of Freddie Mac’s in-house lobbyists. Both were members of the House Financial Services Committee. The Nationals tickets were bargains for Freddie Mac, part of a well-orchestrated, multimillion-dollar campaign to preserve its largely regulatory-free environment, with particular pressure exerted on Republicans who controlled Congress at the time. Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts.” [Associated Press, 12/8/08] 

You're right Jes, there is little out there to think he was lobbying/influence peddling for money.  Gingrich enriched himself through government.  Romney donated his salary as governor, his salary as CEO of the Olympics, his inheritance from his father and his book proceeds to charity.  He made his money by starting his own company and making it one of the most successful in its industry.  He might not be good at throwing red meat to the base but he is a leader.  As it looks now he probably won't win which means Obama will.  Four more years of Obama and we are sunk. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 23, 2012, 01:23:09 pm
The "lies" that Gingrich told to the committee were later found to be the truth by Federal Court, when charges against him were dismissed.

I didn't care how many girl friends Clinton had.  I could care less how many girl friends Gingrich had.  My concern is what his policies would be if elected president.  And although there is a lot I dislike about Gingrich, it looks like he would be the best president, out of those left standing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 23, 2012, 01:25:14 pm
Jes - the problem with using the past mechanics to implement the Gold Standard is that those mechanics failed in the past, and will do so again in the future.  Exactly how would YOU implement the Gold Standard (or bundle of commodities standard), and why would it succeed this time?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 23, 2012, 01:34:31 pm
Not true Dave.  The committee said Gingrich was either "reckless" or "intentional" in the way he conducted himself.

"Neither choice reflects creditably on the House of Representatives," he said.

Gingrich's lawyer, J. Randolph Evans, said Gingrich had agreed to the proposed punishment in the case. "The speaker himself has apologized to the subcommittee, to the House and to the American people," he said.

Regardless of the ethics issue he was voted out of his position by a wide margin of his collegues because of his lack of leadership.  Look at his former house members, how many support him today.  Many, like Tom Coburn have come out against him.  They know his leadership style best, and they don't ant any part of him.  Gingrich is trying to re-write his history and many are letting him as long as Romney doesn't win.  The dirty little secret coming out of SC is that for those who said religion was issue, Gingrich got 46% and Romney got 9%.  Among those who said it wasn't an issue, Romney got 47%.  The real story in SC is the Evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 23, 2012, 01:39:26 pm
As a Democrat I fully support the candidacy of Newt Blingrinch to win his parties nomination for president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 23, 2012, 01:39:28 pm
The committee did indeed say that.  The committee was politically motivated.

Back in the 90s, there were a lot of rino republicans (as there are today).  They did not want Gingrich to succeed, and they looked upon him as a stumbling block to reelection.  So they were perfectly happy to throw him under the bus.

There is a lot about Gingrich that I don't like.  But of those left in the race, he is the least objectionable to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 23, 2012, 01:40:38 pm
Wasn't it about this time a few years back that BEERFAN was assuring all of us that Obama was unelectable?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 23, 2012, 01:41:20 pm
I don't think it was all politically motivated, though.  I wouldn't characterize Tom Coburn or Jim Talent as RINO's, for instance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 23, 2012, 01:56:26 pm
This is a good summary of what he did as a "leader" of the house. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/23/how-newt-gingrich-crashed-and-burned-when-he-was-house-speaker.html

The conservative Washington Times discusses his lobbying for the Prescription Drug Act.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 23, 2012, 02:40:15 pm
Jes, of course you would vote for Obama over Santorum. Paul is to the left of Obama.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2012, 10:56:58 pm
Jes - the problem with using the past mechanics to implement the Gold Standard is that those mechanics failed in the past, and will do so again in the future.  Exactly how would YOU implement the Gold Standard (or bundle of commodities standard), and why would it succeed this time?

The past mechanics did not fail.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 23, 2012, 11:00:13 pm
Jes, of course you would vote for Obama over Santorum. Paul is to the left of Obama.

If you view the political spectrum as only two dimensional, and ignore the most important issues, yea, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 23, 2012, 11:05:42 pm
The mechanics did fail.  Gold was fleeing the country at a substantial rate.  In the course of time, Fort Knox would have been turned into a Howard Johnson motel.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2012, 07:59:18 am
The gold held by Fort Knox was not going anywhere, dave.  It was staying right where it had been.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 24, 2012, 11:26:37 am
Not true.  Foreigners were redeeming dollars for gold in alarming rates, since the redemption rates were well below world rates at 35 dollars (already raised from 20 dollars) per ounce.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2012, 01:20:05 pm
dave, the reason for the redemption was that the US had been running the printing presses in the 1960's to pay for the war in Vietnam without raising taxes.  We simply printed money.  That made the money worth less, while gold retained its value, making it attractive for people to redeem dollars for gold.  This is not a problem with using the gold standard, but a problem resulting from a nation (here the US) trying to finance its spending simply by printing more money.  The way to prevent that is by holding the money supply down instead of simply inflating it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 24, 2012, 01:52:54 pm
Jes - we went off the gold standard in the 1930s, long before the Vietnam war was ever thought of.  We returned to it with the Breton Woods agreement in 1948, but kept changing the redemtpion rate, which is essentially going off the standard, and at last decided not to even keep up the fiction by the early 1970's.

As long as the government has the power to revise the price at which it will redeem gold, there IS no gold standard.  It would become the same fiction we have right now with the debt ceiling.  When we approach the ceiling, we raise the ceiling.  The same thing would happen with the fictional gold standard that Paul advocates.  When our currency depreciates, we would just raise the redemption price of gold.

The gold standard would have no more effect on government spending (and currency creation) than the debt ceiling has today.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2012, 03:01:29 pm
The redemption price of gold was changed far less often than the debt limit has been raised, and far less frequently.  There is ample reason to belief that the gold standard served as a powerful limitation on inflation (I am unaware of anyone claiming a direct link between spending and the gold standard, despite your suggestion of that), and having the power to change the redemption rate does not mean there is no standard.  If you look at the changes in the redemption rate from 1870 thru 1971 (the time we went on the gold standard after the Civil War until Nixon took us off of it) the rate of inflation was miniscule compared to what we have had since then.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 24, 2012, 03:22:32 pm
The number of times it was changed is unimportant.  The fact that it could be changed at will made it worthless as a break on spending.  Thinking that the gold standard will rein in government spending is like thinking that a border fence will end illegal immigration.  It merely deflects us from the real remedies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2012, 05:16:52 pm
The number of times it was changed is unimportant.  The fact that it could be changed at will made it worthless as a break on spending.  Thinking that the gold standard will rein in government spending is like thinking that a border fence will end illegal immigration.  It merely deflects us from the real remedies.

A border fence will not end illegal immigration, but it will make it easier to control immigration.  The gold standard will not end government spending (and I point out again that you seem to be the only one who thinks that is its purpose), but it will make it easier to control inflation.

You have pointed out before that most actions or decisions are not attributable entirely to one cause.  Similarly inflation will not be controlled with only one measure nor will illegal immigration be ended with only one measure (unless the measure is to completely open the borders and make all those who enter legal), but a border fence would be a piece of the puzzle to control immigration, just as the gold standard would help with inflation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 24, 2012, 05:18:59 pm
You haven't explained how the gold standard will help rein in inflation if the Congress merely raises the price of gold as inflation goes up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 24, 2012, 05:23:14 pm
I have not explained, but simply shown.  Without addressing the mechanics, look at the history.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 24, 2012, 07:49:29 pm
The history is that when our country's currency starts to inflate, we go off the gold standard, or merely redefines it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 24, 2012, 09:33:38 pm
Is it too late for Mitch Daniels to get in?  Man I really wish he had run.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 24, 2012, 09:43:41 pm
JR, it may be our best hope.  They go into convention without a clear winner, deadlock and have to go with someone like Daniels or Theune.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 25, 2012, 09:38:29 am
Had Thune decided to run I would have been working for his campaign.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 25, 2012, 09:41:39 am
That said, a brokered convention will not yield an outside winner.

A brokered convention gives us Mitt Romney. Not sure why anyone thinks it would go elsewhere.
The key to a brokered convention is money, influence and backing.

Romney has that in spades.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 25, 2012, 10:44:39 am
A brokered convention would result is a liberal republican candidate.  The tea partiers gave up before they took over the republican party.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 25, 2012, 11:01:32 am
Republicans should be hammering the sh*t out of this.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Warren Buffett cleans up after Keystone XL  -- The Sage of Omaha is one lucky guy.

by John Hayward01/24/2012

When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of “infrastructure” projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail.

As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety.  Fortunately, as Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Monday night Republican debate in Florida, the oil is on private land, so Obama can’t shut production down.

Shipping the oil with a pipeline would have significantly reduced costs, as an Associated Press report explains:

Billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements have been made in recent years to allow North Dakota's oil shipping capacity to keep pace with the skyrocketing production. North Dakota is the nation's fourth-biggest oil producer and is expected to trail only Texas in crude output within the next year.

Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state's so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude.

Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say.

"Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation," Ritter said.

Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted “there is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline,” but that didn’t stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline.

Those rail shipments are expected to “increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines,” according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority.  That’s going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isn’t it?

As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.  What a coincidence!

For some reason, nobody from BNSF or Berkshire Hathaway would return the AP’s telephone calls, but oilman Harold Hamm told them he was sure this was just a wonderful “lucky break” for Barack Obama’s favorite billionaire, who is “certainly favored by this decision.”  I’ve heard Buffett’s famously overtaxed secretary will be a guest at the State of the Union address tonight.  Maybe someone could ask her about it.

The “tax me more” refrain from liberal billionaires is one of the oldest sucker games in the book.  For the well-connected, the money that can be made through government power – whether by influencing corrupt politicians, or merely predicting what they’re going to do - dwarfs whatever income they offer to cough up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2012, 02:16:58 pm
I hardly think the rejection of the XL Pipeline is "bizarre".

First, Nebraska ranchers whose land  the pipeline would run thru did not want the project. The State of Nebraska was set to reject it's route thru the state. Even conservative pols had come out against the pipeline.

Second, environmental concerns are great for many issues in regard to the pipeline. Mainly the oil itself is 5-15% dirtier than other oil currently on the market.

Third, the deposits in North Dakota are ours. That oil is not going anywhere else.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BillSharp on January 25, 2012, 02:41:08 pm
I think Rob & Dave were discussing the Gingrich ethics complaint when he was speaker. Bryon York give a good outline of the case:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

This was one of around 84 ethics complaints that were filed against him, all were eventually proved to be without merit.

There's a CNN clip at the end of York's piece on the exoneration.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 25, 2012, 03:53:31 pm
Otto, that was a well-reasoned and accurate post about the pipeline.  Having roots in both North Dakota and Nebraska, you actually got most of that right.  Who wrote it for you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on January 25, 2012, 04:04:14 pm
hope and change we can believe in
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/25/10235052-us-americans-weak-health-led-to-somali-rescue
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2012, 04:20:36 pm
Curtone

Every now and then I like to throw a curveball from the usual knuckleball.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2012, 04:26:49 pm
Actually williamdull, the blingrinch was NOT exonerated of all 84 charges. He was found guilty of lying to the ethics board (1 of the 84 charges against him) and agreed to pay $300,000 to cover the cost of the committee. The ethics panel which had equal members from both parties voted 7-1 to convict him of lying. The full vote in the House was 395 against blingrinch and he resigned.

Save the revisionist history.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 25, 2012, 04:27:42 pm
The usual knuckleball from the usual knucklehead.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on January 25, 2012, 05:03:39 pm
He was re-elected after the house vote to another two year term as Speaker.  But his brand had been greatly damaged and after the mid-term defeat in 98 he didn't have the votes to be re-elected Speaker so he quit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BillSharp on January 25, 2012, 11:46:30 pm
Oddo, every single complaint that was filed against him was found to be without merit. That's a historical fact.

Admitting that a letter of his lawyer was misleading & that he should have gotten more legal advice has nothing to do with the merits of the complaint.

Another problem with understanding the English language on oddo's part.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 26, 2012, 10:08:51 am
While otto's problems are probably too numerous to catalog, one problem many people have is the tendency to discount any information which is contrary to our existing ideas or beliefs, and to embrace those things which confirm them.

For those who disliked Newt and the things he represented in their minds, anything negative about him was instantly and enthusiastically believed and embraced, while anything positive was discounted or ignored or forgotten.... and that is the same with those who disliked Obama and the things he represented in their minds.

As a result you end up with firm, almost immutable impressions which sometimes have little to do with reality.  The idea that Newt was found guilty of dozens of ethical violations is one such example of this point, and the idea that Obama is a Muslim is another.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 26, 2012, 10:46:11 am
Obama IS a Muslim.  It says so on his birth certificate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 26, 2012, 04:09:00 pm
The right drops a bomb on Newt
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72000.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72000.html)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 26, 2012, 04:15:20 pm
The sure bet about Newt Blingrinch is that his ego always gets the first, second and third word. Like in this very recent case of knowingly lying by the ego.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKonW9PUsWk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKonW9PUsWk&feature=player_embedded)

Wonder if it will come up tonight. Ya know, so the small part of Newt that can relate facts comes out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 26, 2012, 05:00:38 pm
I think I'll move to Belize until December.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 26, 2012, 05:40:18 pm
promises, promises....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 26, 2012, 11:16:13 pm
That's a pretty scathing piece on Politico.

Dave, I think you've suggested in the past that the stuff about Newt's leadership being questionable is hogwash. Is that right? If so, care to comment?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 26, 2012, 11:37:01 pm
Newt led the fight, successfully, to win back the House for the first time in 50 years. 

Newt led the fight, successfully, to reform welfare.  Newt led the fight, successfully, to balance the budget.

He did this in spite of the fact that a large portion of his party were not in favor of either of those ideas.

Gingrich is not my favorite candidate.  I would much rather have had Perry.  I would much rather have had Cain.  I would much rather have Santorum.

Most of all, I would have preferred Scott Walker.

But I would rather have Gingrich than Romney.  With Romney, we will get more of the same, as we got under Bush I and Bush II, and would have gotten under Dole or McCain.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2012, 12:04:37 am
davep, the only candidate who would assure you would NOT get more of the same is Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 27, 2012, 12:39:00 am
So you're not going to address the fact that many people that worked alongside him have serious concerns about his ability to function as POTUS.

Personally, the more I learn the more I'm turned off. I respect him as an ideas man, but I think character matters quite a bit, and Newt seems to fail spectacularly in that regard.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 01:08:24 am
davep, the only candidate who would assure you would NOT get more of the same is Paul.

Jes - Obama promised us change, and he gave it to us.  Obama's change made things worse, as would Ron Paul's.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 01:15:34 am
So you're not going to address the fact that many people that worked alongside him have serious concerns about his ability to function as POTUS.

Personally, the more I learn the more I'm turned off. I respect him as an ideas man, but I think character matters quite a bit, and Newt seems to fail spectacularly in that regard.

Tico, I am sorry.  I thought I had addressed the fact that many people that worked along side of him have serious concerns about his ability to function as POTUS.

When I look at the people that are expressing their concerns, I find that I would probably be worried if those people DID like Gingrich.  Most of them are the reasons that we are in the situation that we are in.  For two generations, those that pretend to be conservative have "gone along to get along" and compromised their beliefs, rather than to stand up for what they believed in (or said they believed in).  And during that time we (as a country) have been on a downward spiral.  I would much prefer a person that will make enemies among the RINOs in the party, rather than continue to accept policies that are not in the interest of the country.

Gingrich accomplished more good in his 4 years as speaker  than than anyone has since.  If it causes some anger on the part of some of the republican establishment, so be it.   I consider it a good thing, not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2012, 07:03:14 am
Jes - Obama promised us change, and he gave it to us.  Obama's change made things worse, as would Ron Paul's.

How would Paul's change make things worse?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2012, 07:43:52 am
When I look at the people that are expressing their concerns, I find that I would probably be worried if those people DID like Gingrich.

So just what people who know Gingrich well as a result of having worked with him in Congress DO like him?

It doesn't bother me that the guy has folks who hate his guts, or are saying negative things about him now, but just who worked with him who thinks highly of him?

Gingrich accomplished more good in his 4 years as speaker  than than anyone has since.

You make it sound as if what was done was done entirely, or even primarily, by Gingrich.

For two generations, those that pretend to be conservative have "gone along to get along" and compromised their beliefs, rather than to stand up for what they believed in (or said they believed in).  And during that time we (as a country) have been on a downward spiral.  I would much prefer a person that will make enemies among the RINOs in the party, rather than continue to accept policies that are not in the interest of the country.

Two generations?  What are you talking about?  The years since roughly 1970?

Are you seriously contending the lives of people in the US today, or the standing of the US today in the world, have declined from 1970 since we have been on a "downward spiral" since then?  If so, you might first want to look at the article, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/going-to-graceland/ and then remember that the Soviet Union is now gone, and has been gone, but only for one generation, not two.  Certainly our international standing was higher immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union (one generation ago) than it was before (two generations ago).

And if you are looking primarily at trajectory, and did intend to refer back to about 1970, you might want to keep in mind that one of the reasons the US did so well from roughly 1945 to 1970 is that compared to the economic devastation our major trade partners suffered during WWII, our economic losses in the war were relatively minor.  This meant that for the 25 years between 1945 and 1970 we enjoyed a tremendous competitive advantage in trading relationships, but by about 1970 that advantage had largely worn away as our trade partners reinvested and rebuilt their industrial capacity, their work forces and their intellectual capital.

Newt's problems are not centered on either his morality, or his lack of sustained focus or his poor organizational skills or his dishonesty or lack of integrity or hubris or self-promotion or unfailing record to truly irritate/alienate/offend anyone and everyone he works with for any lengthy period, his real problem is that while you extol him as a conservative, the guy really is anything but.

He is a self-proclaimed "visionary," filled with what he admits are grandious ideas... which change almost with the tides.  But most of them include expanding the size, scope and power of the federal government, and, like Obama, Newt believes it is just fine for a president to order the assassination of anyone the president determines is a sufficient danger to the US, whether the person is a US citizen or not, whether they could be captured alive or not, whether they are in the US at the time or not, whether others nearby might be killed as "collateral damage" or not, and whether we are at war or not.

These are the reasons that I am afraid Newt could quite easily end up being the most terrible president in our history, not the worst or least effective, but truly the most terrible.... and, despite those concerns, I would STILL vote for him over Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2012, 08:15:15 am
Scott Walker is dirty. Major ethics problems for the corporate stooge coming this spring.

He will not survive the recall effort.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 11:29:21 am
How would Paul's change make things worse?

By allowing Iran (and ultimately everyone in the middle east) to get nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 11:34:26 am
Jes - yes, government spending  started to accelerate in the late 60s and 70s, as republicans chose to finance wars and social programs through debt rather than taxes.  That compromise has resulted in a downward spiral of the economic foundations of the United States.

And yes, I do not believe that the 1990s reforms would have taken place without Gingrich as Speaker of the House.  He forced a lot of liberal republicans to go along with him, stepping on a lot of toes along the way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 27, 2012, 12:11:02 pm
But I would rather have Gingrich than Romney.  With Romney, we will get more of the same, as we got under Bush I and Bush II, and would have gotten under Dole or McCain.

I agree Gingrich would definitely not represent more of the same, but I really doubt that would turn out to be a good thing.  Yes he did get welfare reform and a balanced budget, and that's a great part of his legacy.  Still, public support for what he was doing as speaker declined rapidly, and like it or not, a President needs to retain public support and the support of his party to get things done.  It's not going to do his presidency much good if he repeats his election performance after becoming speaker, which was to help get Clinton re-elected in '96 and be one of the few leaders of an out of power party to lose congressional seats in the '98 midterms.  Gingrich isn't going to get much done if he rubs everyone the wrong way after six months on the job, loses all of his political capital, and winds up with a Democrat congress in 2014 and loses in a landslide to Mario Cuomo or Hillary in 2016. 

We have some major major issues that need to be resolved, and a disorganized erratic lightning rod like Gingrich probably isn't going to be the type that's going to garner enough public support for whatever plan he would put forward to reduce our national debt or all the other major issues that need to be addressed in the next few years.

I'd also argue that nominating Gingrich would probably actually result in more of the same . . . as in four more years of the same with Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 27, 2012, 12:23:02 pm
Quote
That's a pretty scathing piece on Politico.

Yeah, this is a bunch of people saying "Wait, you mean Newt could actually win the nomination?" and starting to do something about it.  If they rain on his parade, though, the rest of primary season will be a lot less entertaining.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2012, 12:50:14 pm
By allowing Iran (and ultimately everyone in the middle east) to get nuclear weapons.

Ultimately there is very little we can do to prevent it, but by trying we can assure that many in the nations which have them will think it is a good idea to use them on the US.

Pakistan, India, China and Israel already have them.  Not exactly the most stable nations in that lot.  And we dealt quite well with the Soviet Union having them, and did so without invading, killing their scientists or trying to bomb their facilities.

There is only one nation on the planet which has actually used nukes, and that is us, and no one in the middle east is in a position to be remotely close to be able to deliver nukes to the US to do damage.

I agree that it would be wonderful if no one else had nukes.  But the genie is already out of the bottle, and fighting to putting him back in it is only likely to do far more harm than good.

Now, to address the specifics of what you mentioned -- "by allowing Iran...."

The US right now is "allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons."  The US is not in a position to STOP Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  And if the US made a military strike to prevent it, there is no assurance we would succeed, and a near certainty the effort would assure more terrorism against the US as a result.

We would be far safer, and more likely to get what we want, to fully open relations with Iran and to allow the democratizing influence of trade and increased contact and exchange to bring down the Iranian regime from within.

The same thing with Cuba.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2012, 01:14:48 pm
I agree Gingrich would definitely not represent more of the same, but I really doubt that would turn out to be a good thing.  Yes he did get welfare reform and a balanced budget, and that's a great part of his legacy.

He reformed welfare.... how many times have we heard that?

And what difference did the "reforms" make?

Seriously now, what difference did the reforms make?

Next to none.

Now if he had ELIMINATED welfare, I would urge we name a national holiday in his honor, but it is still around, and little is in any meaningful way any different.

He "balanced the budget."  Another big woop.

Nothing really was changed, and government spending, which is the real concern, continued to climb unabated.  His current plans would increase spending even faster that it was increasing then, and his belief as to the powers of the presidency is downright frightening.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jeGiTbVTlQ

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 27, 2012, 02:00:27 pm
My old congressman pulling for Newt:

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/pdf_6f9a68ee-4850-11e1-a528-001871e3ce6c.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 27, 2012, 03:14:29 pm
Gingrich is a loose cannon. Now he's claiming that this was the most dishonest debate in election history. He's also saying the crowd was stacked with Romney supporters. Remember that earlier he had threatened to skip the debates if audiences weren't allowed to clap and cheer. Infantile, take-my-ball-and-go-home behavior. The dude is nuts. Interesting tactics for the guy who said he was going to run a positive campaign no matter what.

Previously he claimed that he had loads of friends willing to talk with major news organizations to refute the notion that he wanted an open marriage. Turns out that was a bald-faced lie.

Pandering to voters in Florida, he's promising them a colony on the moon? All while we have a historic debt crisis on our hands?

This is also the guy who abandoned two women in desperate circumstances to whom he had pledged himself in sickness and in health.

The more I see the less I like.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 03:19:58 pm
Me too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 27, 2012, 03:20:16 pm
Gingrich will struggle to win more than 2-3 states if he gets the nomination.  A sick part of me wants to see him win the nomination just because the massacre and subsequent meltdown of the far right will be so entertaining.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 27, 2012, 03:33:18 pm
Gingrich will struggle to win more than 2-3 states if he gets the nomination.  A sick part of me wants to see him win the nomination just because the massacre and subsequent meltdown of the far right will be so entertaining.

Actually if Gingrich won the nomination and lost in a landslide, the far right would just cite that Gingrich was never reliably conservative enough, how he was always really more comfortable being a Rockefeller Republican, etc., and if only a true conservative had been nominated, they would have beaten Obama handily.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: UK on January 27, 2012, 03:33:44 pm
Agreed that Newt if he is the nominee will win more than the traditional conservative states and lose all of the traditional toss-up states. Personally, I think we're watching the soon to be decline of him in primaries. The question will be whether Santorum will pick up that momentum and conservative calling for anybody but Romney or he falls to the funding gods as well as he's already pulled out of Florida.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: UK on January 27, 2012, 03:36:04 pm
Actually if Gingrich won the nomination and lost in a landslide, the far right would just cite that Gingrich was never reliably conservative enough, how he was always really more comfortable being a Rockefeller Republican, etc., and if only a true conservative had been nominated, they would have beaten Obama handily.

Most in the GOP are already doing this, I don't recall members of the same party bashing one of their potential candidates like this.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on January 27, 2012, 03:36:52 pm
Santorum wins enough delegates to force the convention to say:

"Gov. Christie, your'e running whether you want to or not."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 03:38:26 pm
Most conservatives to not consider Gingrich to be a true conservative.  Unfortunatly, you have to pick someone out of the current field, and there are no better alternatives.  If Santorum can't do well in Florida, he isn't likely to do well in the general election.

If the economy continues to improve, no one is going to beat Obama anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 27, 2012, 03:52:56 pm
Expert opinion has it that Obama will lose regardless.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 04:22:42 pm
It looked that way at one time, but things are starting to change.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 27, 2012, 05:11:49 pm
I think there are Republican candidates who could have given him a fight, but decided to sit back and wait four years.   I assume they fear taking on a sitting President.  I won't forget that in four years.

I'm really weary of all the trash talk and each side taking credit for stuff they were against at one time.  The cycle never seems to end.  The other night Obama takes credit for our armed services' successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, not mentioning, of course, that he spoke against and voted against both wars.  And there is no doubt in my mind that if a Republican President had ordered Bin Laden's demise along with killing American citizens, Obama would have been the first voice to decry it.  And, yes, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans do it too. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 27, 2012, 05:26:44 pm
No way Obama loses to Gingrich or Santorum.  Or Ron Paul.

With the way the GOP is giving Newt the radioactive treatment, I'll amend things to say that Gingrich is even more unelectable than Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 05:32:36 pm
The electability of the republicans really isn't the issue this year.  Either the economy is the issue, and Obama will lose to anyone, or it will not be the issue, and Obama will beat anyone.

The tea partiers are defunct, and Obamacare is no longer motivating the electorate in either direction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 27, 2012, 06:32:59 pm
The electability of the republicans really isn't the issue this year.  Either the economy is the issue, and Obama will lose to anyone, or it will not be the issue, and Obama will beat anyone.

The tea partiers are defunct, and Obamacare is no longer motivating the electorate in either direction.

I disagree with that, I don't think Newt or Santorum are electable in any scenario.  It would probably still be a competition even if Obama came out and admitted he was killing the economy on purpose.

But even if you're right, I think at least Santorum is unelectable.  I don't think he can resist the urge to talk about his social issues and attacking the Middle East for long enough to make the election about the economy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 06:59:46 pm
There are still some on both sides foolish to base their vote on social issues, but they would probably cancel each other out.  The economy and spending are likely to be the major issues, and Santorum is acceptable on both.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 27, 2012, 06:59:52 pm
According to this place, Hillary Clinton has a better shot of winning the 2012 election than Santorum.

http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 07:01:47 pm
Hillary would probably bring in more votes in the upcoming election than Obama will.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on January 27, 2012, 07:44:08 pm
It's not just the people voting on social issues...its' the fact that Santorum will energize the LGBT and pro-choice communities like literally no other national politician could.  They will attack him on everything.  They wouldn't be able to avoid social issues in any debate or interview, and the conversation would never turn towards the economy. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2012, 09:06:13 pm
If the economy is still viewed as being stagnant, Obama will lose.  If the economy is viewed as improving, Obama will win.

Either way, the Republicans will retain the house and will regain the Senate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2012, 09:36:06 pm
Pandering to voters in Florida, he's promising them a colony on the moon? All while we have a historic debt crisis on our hands?

In fairness to Newt, and while actually agreeing with you on most of your other points, Newt has NOT been talking about having the federal government colonize the moon or Mars, but instead allowing private enterprise to do it, and to put in place the government policies which would encourage it.

If you look at the colonization models of the various European nations in colonizing the Americans, the nation which made the greatest use of private property rights (England) was the one which was most successful -- in other words there is an available model which would likely work quite well, and which if combined with allowing any profits resulting from such colonization or exploration or development to be tax free for perhaps 50 years would assure pretty rapid development, all with private dollars and without any federal budget outlays.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 28, 2012, 08:14:35 am
Agreed that Newt if he is the nominee will win more than the traditional conservative states and lose all of the traditional toss-up states. Personally, I think we're watching the soon to be decline of him in primaries. The question will be whether Santorum will pick up that momentum and conservative calling for anybody but Romney or he falls to the funding gods as well as he's already pulled out of Florida.

Santorum thankfully has no path to the nomination.  Even Santorum, and a Republican Congress, would beat Obama, but Santorum would actually do more harm to the nation than Obama and either a Republican Congress or a divided Congress.


If the economy continues to improve, no one is going to beat Obama anyway.

Votes won't change until voters feel any improvement in the economy, and even the rosiest and most unrealistic economic forecasts do not call for enough improvement to help the jobs picture to any meaningful degree by election day.  More realistic forecasts actually call for another dip, and perhaps a very serious one, in the coming months.

No way Obama loses to Gingrich or Santorum.  Or Ron Paul.

Not only would Obama lose to any of them, because the election will be a referendum on Obama, much as the 2008 election ended up being a referendum on Bush, but Paul is the one who would beat Obama by the biggest margin.

Even those Republicans who don't like freedom, even those Republicans who love big government, even those Republicans who think the US should be at war anytime we can find an excuse for it, and even those Republicans who believe we need to have 900+ military bases outside of the United States and that all of those bases keep us strong.... will vote for Paul over Obama.  They might do so while holding their noses, and they might not do so enthusiastically, and some of them might sit the election out, but the cast majority of them would show up at the polls and they would vote to replace Obama.

Much of Obama's base is also somewhat disillusioned by Obama's performance, and would sit out the 2012 election, and many of them would actually switch and vote for Paul, particularly all of those who are sincere in their concerns about civil liberties and the anti-war crowd, and those who favor drug legalization.   That includes a decent sized chunk of the Democratic base.

Paul also has polled quite well with independents and presumably would continue to do so, particularly among those who are simply anti-government, and he would unquestionably get the 3-6% of the electorate which has been voting for the Libertarian Party each election.

Paul may not get the nomination, but if he does, he would be the one who would beat Obama most easily, and probably by the widest margin.

I disagree with that, I don't think Newt or Santorum are electable in any scenario. 

As long as Obama is the Democratic candidate, they are electable.

It's not just the people voting on social issues...its' the fact that Santorum will energize the LGBT and pro-choice communities like literally no other national politician could.

No pun intended, but neither the "LGBT," nor the BDSM crowds, are going to swing a lot of votes.

Gingrich will struggle to win more than 2-3 states if he gets the nomination.

Any of the four main Republicans still in the race would beat Obama.  A majority of the nation simply wants to get rid of Obama.  To a very large chunk of the electorate who the replacement would be matters very little.  If Jimmy Carter ran on the Republican ticket, he would beat Obama.


Either way, the Republicans will retain the house and will regain the Senate.

Which is why even though I am certain Obama will lose, it might well be better if he wins, at least if the Republican nominee is either Gingrich or Santorum, both of whom would expand the size and power of the federal government, order the assassination of more people they all on their lonesome determined to be dangerous terrorists, and would likely get us involved in at least one more war.  Divided government puts checks on such things.  When Congress and the president are of the same party you get foolishness like the prescription drug plan, which the  Republicans would have opposed and likely blocked had it come from a Democrat, but which they overwhelmingly supported since it came from a Republican president.

I think there are Republican candidates who could have given him a fight, but decided to sit back and wait four years.   I assume they fear taking on a sitting President.  I won't forget that in four years.

Who are these phantom Republicans?  And why in the world would they have looked at the situation which existed in early 2011, when most declared, and thought Obama would be tough to beat?


And there is no doubt in my mind that if a Republican President had ordered Bin Laden's demise along with killing American citizens, Obama would have been the first voice to decry it.  And, yes, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans do it too. 

Some of us, who are neither Democrats not Republicans, were critical of such actions by Bush, and also critical of Obama when he trumped what Bush had been doing and violated civil liberties to a car greater degree.  Instead of mere indefinite detention (which Obama said he would use despite Supreme Court rulings), Obama orders folks killed.  I have no problem with ordering arrest and detention for the purpose of bringing someone to trial and killing them if they put at risk the lives of any of those trying to take him into custody, or even if that is the only way to prevent him from fleeing.... but that is not what Obama did with either bin Laden or Alakwi.  He simply ordered them killed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 30, 2012, 01:16:40 pm
Between Paul's insistence that Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon and his history of racists newsletter publishing, it's a good thing he'll never be anywhere near the White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 30, 2012, 04:26:07 pm
Looks like jes and Snoop Dogg are now on the same team.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ron-paul-wins-snoop-dogg-endorsement
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 30, 2012, 05:04:32 pm
Uhhhr?  Legal drugs?  Uhhhr?  Sign me up, dude.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on January 30, 2012, 05:34:36 pm
how do we stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon ?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 30, 2012, 07:06:31 pm
Are we the world's policemen?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 30, 2012, 07:15:55 pm
No.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 30, 2012, 07:51:26 pm
how do we stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon ?

We don't and realistically we can't.

Only one candidate has both the sense to recognize that and the balls to admit it.

At least two candidates, however, and possibly the sitting president, would be willing to have us go to war over the issue, despite our inability to achieve the stated goal if we do go to war, and the near certainty that doing so would leave us much worse off than when we started.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 30, 2012, 07:52:42 pm
Looks like jes and Snoop Dogg are now on the same team.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ron-paul-wins-snoop-dogg-endorsement

That must be wrong.  After all, ISF has already pointed out how Paul is racist.

No way Snoop would support a racist bigot like that.  Must be a mistake somewhere in that look.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 31, 2012, 10:56:43 am
It would appear thus far that we have indeed kept Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Read the news once in a while.

In a related note, we also kept Syria from obtaining one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 31, 2012, 10:57:58 am
Snoop just likes how crazy Uncle Ron waves his hands. Probably use him as a prop in the next video...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 01:19:16 pm
It would appear thus far that we have indeed kept Iran from having a nuclear weapon. 

Yea, about like we have also "kept" the Congo from having one.

Just because Iran does not have nuclear weapons does not mean we have "kept" them from having nuclear weapons.

Unless you also want to credit Al Gore for having "kept" earth from suffering from global warming....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 31, 2012, 01:39:54 pm
Yea, about like we have also "kept" the Congo from having one.

Isn't the Congo's nuclear weapon basically a Coke bottle rocket?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 31, 2012, 02:03:28 pm
Yea, about like we have also "kept" the Congo from having one.

Just because Iran does not have nuclear weapons does not mean we have "kept" them from having nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure we haven't had anything to do with it...

I'm sure Ron Paul thinks so too.

And if we would just say nice things about Iran and trade with them, they would be wonderful citizens of the global community and they would never talk about wiping Israel from the map again....


(http://www.hitupmyspot.com/carebear/0bcare9006.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 02:05:59 pm
The only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to attack them and destroy their ability to develop them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 31, 2012, 02:09:15 pm
It's funny you should mention that....

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-11/middleeast/world_meast_iran-who-kills-scientists_1_iranian-nuclear-scientists-iranian-regime-natanz?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 02:20:40 pm
The only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to attack them and destroy their ability to develop them.

Absent a full scale war and removing the existing government root and branch, there is no assurance that that we could prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if we did attack.  There is also no reason to believe this nation has the stomach for that, and no justification we could provide for it with the international community in general.  It would also do us far more harm than good in any effort to curb terrorism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 02:24:23 pm
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure we haven't had anything to do with it...


ISF, you would have been one of the folks believing the ancient shamen telling you at the time of the winter solstice that their efforts have caused the sun to reverse course and return to grow the crops in the coming year.

As to your link,  http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-11/middleeast/world_meast_iran-who-kills-scientists_1_iranian-nuclear-scientists-iranian-regime-natanz?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST , I would not be at all surprised if the CIA were behind the assassinations.  Obama has made clear that he believes he has the power to order the killing of anyone he wants.  Screw the law.  He is the all-knowing Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 02:26:09 pm
Nonetheless, it could be done.

And very likely, eventually will be done, unless Israel manages to kill enough of their scientists to slow things down.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 02:28:30 pm
dave, as a practical matter, it could not be done, and would be counterproductive if attempted.

So, yea, other than that I have to agree with you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 31, 2012, 02:33:20 pm
I would not be at all surprised if the CIA were behind the assassinations.  Obama has made clear that he believes he has the power to order the killing of anyone he wants.  Screw the law.  He is the all-knowing Obama.

Jes, it's nice to see you agree we've likely been involved in keeping Iran from having nukes.
You should probably share that information with crazy Uncle Ron.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 02:38:34 pm
Jes - as a practical matter, it would be done rather simply.  Counterproductive would depend upon your criteria.  After a war, won or lost, Iran would be delayed substantially in their development of nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 31, 2012, 02:46:18 pm
davepe

Foot soldier in the chickenhawk army of US aggression to end Islamic faith.

If the crazy Iranian leaders ever get a nuke they will have joined the reality of mutually assured destruction that every other nuke nation enjoys.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 02:49:34 pm
One thing you have to say about Oddo.  He is an idiot.

Where did I say that I wanted to end the Islamic faith, or is that just another of your drug-induced fantasies?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 31, 2012, 02:49:50 pm
davepe

Foot soldier in the chickenhawk army of US aggression to end Islamic faith.

If the crazy Iranian leaders ever get a nuke they will have joined the reality of mutually assured destruction that every other nuke nation enjoys.

are these other nations run by folks that welcome their own death as martyrdom while killing the infidels?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 03:00:12 pm
Jes, it's nice to see you agree we've likely been involved in keeping Iran from having nukes.

No, ISF, I agreed that the US was probably responsible for killing Iranian scientists.  That is not the same as stopping the program.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 03:02:32 pm
Jes - as a practical matter, it would be done rather simply.  Counterproductive would depend upon your criteria.  After a war, won or lost, Iran would be delayed substantially in their development of nuclear weapons.

No, dave, practical matters include political realities.

I will concede that the US has the nuclear capability of making Iran a nuclear wasteland where no one could survive and anyone in any deep bunkers working on current projects could not get the needed supplies to stay alive.

But as a practical matter, we could not do that.

As a practical matter, we can not stop Iran, if developing nukes is what it is intent on doing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 31, 2012, 03:07:02 pm
It doesn't have to stop the program. It just has to delay the program. Continue to eliminate necessary parts of the program, and it is perpetually delayed.

If your suspicions are correct, we have been complicit in having kept Iran from having a nuclear weapon.


Which would, of course, be what I said from the beginning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on January 31, 2012, 03:13:09 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-newsletters-swiftness-of-black-men_n_1169990.html

The Dallas Morning News -- May 22, 1996.

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns.



But hey....he's got Snoop Dogg....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 04:13:22 pm
If your suspicions are correct, we have been complicit in having kept Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Not at all.  We have killed three scientists.  That does not mean we have kept Iran from anything.  We are not talking about a need to discover things which have never been discovered before.  We have gotten blood on our hands, and we have given Arabs, Moslems and Iranians in particular, even more reason to hate and distrust the US than before, but we have not stopped, or likely even meaningfully delayed anything.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on January 31, 2012, 05:33:34 pm
I think I'm tired of hearing from Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson how mean and nasty the Romney campaign has been to Newt.

 http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/gingrich-robocall-romney-forced-holocaust-survivors-to-eat-non-kosher/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 05:38:50 pm
I think I'm tired of hearing from Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson how mean and nasty the Romney campaign has been to Newt.

Is someone holding you down and forcing you to listen to them?

Then don't listen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 07:05:44 pm
Jes - that is a faulty dilemma.  There are other ways to defeat iran in a war other than dropping nuclear bombs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 31, 2012, 08:08:32 pm
I think I'm tired of hearing from Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson how mean and nasty the Romney campaign has been to Newt.

 http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/gingrich-robocall-romney-forced-holocaust-survivors-to-eat-non-kosher/

is there a thumbs up emoticon around here?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 08:33:22 pm
That is a great example of political ads that are extremely deceiving.  The local Fort Myers paper did an article on that yesterday.

The Mass. legislature DID pass a bill to pay for kosher kitchens to be put, at government expense, in some nursing homes in Mass.  And it is true that after Romney vetoed the bill, they passed it over the veto.

But it is NOT true that Romney was forcing Jewish people to eat non-kosher food.  Kosher food was already being provided to residents of nursing homes, and would have continued to be given to residents of nursing homes even if the veto had not been overridden.  He vetoed the bill merely because it was an extremely expensive way to provide something that they were already given.

Regardless of the truth, it was an extremely effective ad in a state where there are numerous retired Jewish people.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 10:28:02 pm
Regardless of the truth, it was an extremely effective ad in a state where there are numerous retired Jewish people.

Considering the outcome of the vote, perhaps it was not as effective as you might have thought.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 10:30:27 pm
Jes - that is a faulty dilemma.

The way you and ISF and 3 of the 4 four remaining Republican presidential candidates are looking at the entire issue is a faulty dilemma.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 10:40:41 pm
Considering the outcome of the vote, perhaps it was not as effective as you might have thought.

Local polls showed Romney ahead about 30 points until the ads ran.  In spite of being outspent about 6 to 1, Gingrich gained about 10 points.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 31, 2012, 10:53:53 pm
Amazing.  There are folks out there as dumb as a box of rocks.... and we let them all vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 31, 2012, 11:14:42 pm
That is why Obama is still likely to win this November, as the media starts to chant that things are getting better.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 31, 2012, 11:35:59 pm
Ya, the nation was so much better off losing 775,000 jobs a month rather than gaining 225,000 a month under POresident Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 01, 2012, 08:32:01 am
The slowest recovery in history.  2% growth this year, another 1 trillion budget deficit and otto is bragging.  LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 01, 2012, 09:30:35 am
Don't worry, help is on the way...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/rnc-invites-voters-to-submit-resume-to-obama-113097.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 01, 2012, 09:53:07 am
The economy has been a disaster.  Hard to tell whether Obama's leadership has had much impact in either direction.  The key to the election will be whether there is general optimism or pessimism about our economic future come November.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 01, 2012, 10:04:00 am
And optimism is growing, and will continue to grow through the summer.  The only thing that I see that could derail a recovery at this point is a disaster in Europe.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 10:25:49 am
That is why Obama is still likely to win this November, as the media starts to chant that things are getting better.

dave, we no longer live in the 1960's when there were three networks, 60% of all TV's in use were watching Walter Cronkite each evening, and the NYT and Washington Post set the news agenda each morning.

The media does not have anything resembling the influence it once had, and the "chant," which we have already begun to see, will not change the reality.  And the reality is that even the Fed and the CBO expect the economy to continue s*cking for the next year or two.

There just aren't enough otto's out there who belief the sh*t the administration is peddling.

And if the economic picture in China or Europe turns seriously sour, as may well happen, then we fall off a cliff.  If the real estate market dislodges and finishes its collapse (and the commercial real estate bubble has not really popped yet), then we fall off a cliff.  And if tensions in the Middle East continue and disrupt oil flow thru the Straits of Hormuz, then we fall off a cliff.

The economy is not only sputtering, but it is dangerously close to dipping even further than it did in 2008.

While you are correct that the "right track wrong track" polling has improved for Obama since last summer when it was 14/80 in July, it is still 26/67.

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 01, 2012, 11:04:23 am
Jes, do you play craps?  If so, Don't Pass is definitely your wager of choice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 01, 2012, 11:07:36 am
Jes - the wonks that are interested in politics are looking at all the cable channels, but most of the country are quite disinterested in politics at this time, and still get their information from the three over-the-air news programs and local newspapers, most of which give a liberal point of view.  Those that are looking at cable channels are looking only at those channels that give their slant on the news.

By August, we will have been bombarded with stories of how the unemployment rates are declining AND ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TO DECLINE.  Rather obscure data will be given that reinforce that belief.  And the 60 % that get their political information from that media will be convinced that things are getting better.

I wish it weren't so.

It is true that a failure in Europe could derail the US recovery.

Obama might lose.  I hope so.  But the odds are greatly against it.  Most of those who are predicting his loss are the same ones that were saying in 2008 that he didn't have a chance of winning the race that year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 11:15:43 am
Jes, do you play craps?  If so, Don't Pass is definitely your wager of choice.

My dad actually taught me to play craps when I was in kindergarten.  Taught me the probabilities, too.  Then I took a pair of dice to school with me and tried teaching the other kids.

The teacher did not like that.  Somehow thought it was not a proper playground activity for five year olds.  Heck, I was teaching those other yard apes how to count, add and figure odds.  She should have thanked me.

She did not.

She called mom and apparently chewed my mother's *ss.

That led to mom chewing dad's *ss.

And of course I also got chewed a bit.

Never played craps again.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 11:17:56 am
Jes - the wonks that are interested in politics are looking at all the cable channels, but most of the country are quite disinterested in politics at this time, and still get their information from the three over-the-air news programs and local newspapers, most of which give a liberal point of view.  Those that are looking at cable channels are looking only at those channels that give their slant on the news.

dave, let's just say we disagree here and leave it at that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 01, 2012, 11:20:36 am
The economy in the last 22 months has created 3.2 million jobs. The unemployment rate is dropping along with unemployment claims.

Yet, conservatives still push the we were better off in 2008 when the bush economy was collapsing.

I have also learned from reagone, bush sr and the scrub that deficits don't matter.

jes beard

I heard that the teacher called your Mom about you shooting craps and she got upset because she did not know how to cook them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 01, 2012, 11:25:38 am
Most recessions last about 18 months.  This one has lasted almost 4 years and still isn't over, strictly because of the inept actions of the current administration.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 01, 2012, 11:33:44 am
"Most recessions last about 18 months.  This one has lasted almost 4 years and still isn't over, strictly because of the inept actions of the current administration."

Makes for good campaign material, but at worst nonsense and at best surmise.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 01, 2012, 12:18:00 pm
The economy in the last 22 months has created 3.2 million jobs. The unemployment rate is dropping along with unemployment claims.

Yet, conservatives still push the we were better off in 2008 when the bush economy was collapsing.

I have also learned from reagone, bush sr and the scrub that deficits don't matter.

jes beard

I heard that the teacher called your Mom about you shooting craps and she got upset because she did not know how to cook them.

Otto, both parties exaggerate these numbers and use them to their advantage.  They don't mean much.  Most jobs created have been in the service industries, low pay and no benefits.  Many upper level employees are still looking.  College grads are still waiting tables and working at WalMart, because nothing is opening up.  And unemployment figures never show how many have given up on looking for work. 

In our area I'm amazed at the high level of unemployment and we're better off than most.  At election time, people will vote with the experience they and others are having and not on statistics.

Remember Bush I?  Statistically, things looked pretty good.  Really was different and Clinton was elected.

And no matter how good the statistics are, the Republicans will find a way to make them look bad.  Count on it.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 12:54:48 pm
"Most recessions last about 18 months.  This one has lasted almost 4 years and still isn't over, strictly because of the inept actions of the current administration."

Makes for good campaign material, but at worst nonsense and at best surmise.

Not really.  In the last 130 years we have only twice had lengthy recessions, and both were marked by similar efforts to expand government in general and the government role in the economy in particular.  Other industrialized economies in the 1930's and today which did less to interfere with the market came out of their corresponding recessions rather quickly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 01, 2012, 01:02:30 pm
Weak correlative evidence.  Nature of economics in the real world, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 01, 2012, 01:10:09 pm
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 01, 2012, 01:38:57 pm
Bingo
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 01:45:09 pm
Weak correlative evidence.  Nature of economics in the real world, unfortunately.

Not at all.  Actually a pretty clear cause and effect relationship.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 01, 2012, 02:05:55 pm
Whatever you say, Jes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 02:40:23 pm
Not just me, Play.  Read Friedman.  Or better yet, offer a credible explanation for why Canada and Germany suffered the same downturn the US did in 2008, and both recovered fairly quickly, or why most of the industrialized world recovered fairly quickly from the Great Depression, while the US suffered on for more than 10 years.  And in particular compare those "recoveries" with what was seen  immediately after WWII, when Congress refused to have the government intervene in the market, or in 1920, then Congress again insisted on allowing the market to correct itself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 02:43:14 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-is-prepared-to-launch-terrorist-attacks-in-us-intelligence-report-finds/2012/01/30/gIQACwGweQ_story.html

Let's see.... the US assassinates Iranian scientists in Iran, and now the US will feign surprise at Iran responding with terrorist attacks in the US.  About like the reaction to the embassy takeover in Iran with the fall of the Shaw, all while the US conveniently forgot that it had INSTALLED the Shaw in a coup in Iran almost 30 years earlier.... no reason to have expected any blow-back from that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 01, 2012, 02:48:49 pm
I wasn't aware that you had seen proof that the United States was the one that assassinated the scientists.  Or is it just you prejudices making judgements.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 01, 2012, 02:54:38 pm
Jes, none of the examples that you list proves anything.  Your position is a matter of faith supported by weak evidence.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 01, 2012, 03:55:50 pm
As Playtwo creeps closer with the stick, the crowd that has gathered hushes.  On the outskirts, near the Civil War statue, a small child begins to cry.  The mother quickly places her hand over the child's mouth, stifling the sound.  Playtwo's friends watch, not breathing, except the two toward the back wagering on his survival, even now not allowing friendship to interfere with making some easy money.  Playtwo jabs the bear again and time freezes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 01, 2012, 03:57:13 pm
Sorry.

Shouldn't have done that.

The Devil made me do it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 04:04:08 pm
I wasn't aware that you had seen proof that the United States was the one that assassinated the scientists.  Or is it just you prejudices making judgements.

dave, I suspect you would agree with the following:

1) The scientists were assassinated.

2) The US thinks it would be better off with dead nuclear scientists in Iran.

3) The US does have the capability to carry out such assassinations in Iran.

4) The US has a history which includes such assassinations.

5) The US has made clear that it wants to prevent a nuclear Iran, and has made clear that it is removing no options from the table in preventing it.

6) While several other nations would like to avoid a nuclear Iran, several of those do not have the capability of doing it.

7) The current president has shown a clear willingness to order non-judicial execution of specific individuals when he feels it serves his interests.

8) Whether the US was involved in it or not, in Iran and much of the Moslem or Arab world, it will be believed that the US was responsible even if it was not.

9) Iran's reaction will likely be based less on what did or did not happen than it will be based on what its leaders and people perceive to have happened.

10) The belief in Iran that the US was responsible for putting and keeping the Shaw in power in Iran is on pretty firm historical footing.

Can we agree on those points, dave?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 01, 2012, 04:06:32 pm
Quote
Your position is a matter of faith supported by weak evidence.

Kind of like trickle-down economics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 04:09:05 pm
Jes, none of the examples that you list proves anything.  Your position is a matter of faith supported by weak evidence.

Play proof is simply that which is required to convince someone of something.

Your own faith in the value of government intervention in the marketplace make it rather difficult for you to accept any of its failings.  I understand that.  Can you offer anything remotely resembling strong evidence to support your belief that government intervention by Obama helped the current situation or that government intervention under FDR did so 80 years ago?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 04:11:25 pm
For those who still believe Obama will be re-elected -- http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 01, 2012, 04:25:22 pm
George W. Bush's approval numbers weren't a whole lot better in 2004, but nobody thought very much of John Kerry either, which is how Bush wound up getting re-elected.

That's probably a lot like how it will play in 2012.  Even with those approval numbers, people may not think a whole lot better of Mitt Romney and probably will wind up thinking even less of Newt Gingrich.  Even if the incumbent is mildly unpopular, which is what Obama is, you have to put up an opponent that people will definitely want to replace him with if you're going to defeat him.  Otherwise people will usually stick with the mediocrity they know instead of turning things over to the mediocrity they don't know.

Beating an incumbent president is tough, even if he isn't especially popular, and Obama's approval ratings will have to get a lot worse before it's a total shoo-in that he will lose.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 01, 2012, 04:27:48 pm
Really jes beard the world recovered fairy quickly from the Great Depression...faster than America.

And just how did Japan and Germany manage that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 01, 2012, 04:51:25 pm
Jes, I have no idea whether Obama's policies have helped or hurt the recovery.  I suspect they have made little difference, and I doubt anything the opposition has supported would have made much difference.  I believe that going forward we need to prudently limit spending while maintaining the federal tax base in order to shrink the deficit and promote economic growth.  That seems to be the Obama approach.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 05:03:32 pm
George W. Bush's approval numbers weren't a whole lot better in 2004, but nobody thought very much of John Kerry either, which is how Bush wound up getting re-elected.

Your memory is off.  Obama's numbers are not even close to tracking Bush's.  They are in fact tracking Carter's.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151106/Obama-November-Approval-Weak-Historical-Perspective.aspx

Bush in 2003 was essentially where Clinton was in 1995.

The full current state by state poll is here http://www.gallup.com/poll/152372/Obama-Approval-Above-States-2011.aspx

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 01, 2012, 05:04:21 pm
"The Bureau of labor statistics reported this morning that the unemployment rate fell by 0.4% to 8.6%—what the Obama Administration would call a success. However, one key fact was left out of this report: the work force has decreased immensely since President Obama has taken office.

Those who have given up looking for jobs are not included in unemployment statistics.

The Associated Press reports that, “more than 300,000 people stopped their job searches last month and were no longer counted as unemployed. That contributed to the drop in the unemployment rate. The rate could rise in future months if they resume looking.”

And here is the damning stat

“If labor force size was same as Oct., U-3 [i.e., core] unemployment rate would [now] be 8.9%; [if labor force size was] same as when Obama took office, [then U-3 unemployment would be] 11%.”

So basically during Obama's time in office hundreds of thousands of people have given up looking for work.  If they were counted in the stats or if the same number of people were in the workforce as just three years ago, the unemployment rate would be 11%.  So speaking of lies, damn lies and statistics.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 01, 2012, 05:05:07 pm
Maybe there is a reason the US took so long to recover.  The New Deal comes to mind.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 01, 2012, 05:16:10 pm
Bush's approval rating the last week of January 2004 was 49%, and Obama's is currently 45%.  I think I'll stand by my statement that Bush's ratings "weren't a whole lot better".  During the last week of October 2004, Bush was at 48% approval, which could easily be where Obama will be by time October-November 2012 rolls around, especially since Obama has been averaging 49% approval during his presidency thus far. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx)

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was at 37% approval in September 1980 and 31% after the election in November 1980.  Obama has to drop a whole lot more before he gets to those levels by time the election comes around.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Carter#.TynGeiPEPak (http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Carter#.TynGeiPEPak)

(Carter was actually at 58% approval in late January 1980, which IIRC was when people were rallying around him during the Iranian hostage crisis.) 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 01, 2012, 05:16:49 pm
Robb

Just found out why I think your stupid.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 01, 2012, 05:19:17 pm
Robb

Just found out why I think your stupid.

Let me translate for those who don't speak Otto, 

"Robb,  there is no way to dispute your post, I'm not smart enough to even deflect to a different argument so, you are stupid."

Good one!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 01, 2012, 05:20:20 pm
Raty has President Barack Hussein Obama at 49% today and that is not 38%

Just so you know.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 01, 2012, 05:21:31 pm
If the CBO estimates that came out recently are true, I don't think his approval numbers will be doing anything but going down unless there is an attack by Iran or something.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 01, 2012, 05:23:01 pm
Just found out why I think your stupid.

Nice!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 01, 2012, 05:26:27 pm
Quote
Maybe there is a reason the US took so long to recover.  The New Deal comes to mind.

Stupid glen beckerhead responses like this confirm it.

Did you offer anything besides the narrative of the ignorant?

No.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on February 01, 2012, 05:40:38 pm
Since George W. Bush and unemployment have both received some attention today:

When W first took office, the White House predicted there would be 200,000 new jobs created in the next month.  The actual number turned out to be 100,000 like everyone else expected.

The White House then announced there would be 50,000 new jobs in the next month.  Once again, the actual number was 100,000.  The White House then loudly exclaimed "We are doing such a great job that there were twice as many new jobs as expected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 01, 2012, 05:53:04 pm
None of them know how to "create jobs," but it makes good press to say that you do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 05:55:42 pm
None of them know how to "create jobs," but it makes good press to say that you do.

I disagree.

Romney knows how to create jobs as an entrepreneur.  And Paul knows how to minimize government to create allow the market to create employment and wealth (not always the same thing as creating jobs).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 01, 2012, 06:43:09 pm
Jes - I also think the world would be better off if Iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon.

But honest, I have an alibi.  I didn't do it.

And just about all the things you mentioned also could be attributed to Israel.  In fact, they are in much more danger than we are of the initial effects of a nuclear attack.  It seems irresponsible to try to put the blame on someone when there is a much more likely assassian.

As a matter of fact, it is rather irresponsible to claim that any specific country is responsible, since you have absolutely no evidence beyond your own prejudice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 06:54:07 pm
Maybe there is a reason the US took so long to recover.  The New Deal comes to mind.

What is sad is the degree to which everyone in public school in this country gets brainwashed to believe that FDR was entirely responsible for getting the US out of the depression thru all of his wonderful programs.

It results in folks like Play finding it impossible to believe otherwise, despite all of the evidence being that the massive government intervention in the marketplace under FDR was primarily responsible for the length and depth of the depression in this country.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 07:03:31 pm
As a matter of fact, it is rather irresponsible to claim that any specific country is responsible, since you have absolutely no evidence beyond your own prejudice.

What I believe happened and say happened is irrelevant.  What is relevant is the fact that the conduct of the US results in IRAN believing the US is responsible, along with or independent of Israel.

When you have someone like Newt in national debates (which Iranian observers certainly would be watching) saying very clearly that he would use the CIA to do exactly what we are talking about having happened -- covertly assassinating Iranian scientists.

Obama could have quickly condemned that approach, pointed out that it was not only illegal under US law, and would violate international law, but that he personally would never approve such a measure and that it would be a mistake for the nation ever to do that.... but he did not.  And he will not.

He has shown that he pretty much approves of using presidential orders of assassination without any judicial recourse, and when he and his administration keep saying that ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE, they encourage Iran to reach the same conclusions I have, whether correct or not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 01, 2012, 07:17:56 pm
Whether or not Iran believes that the US is responsible is irrelevant to whether or not the US WAS responsible.

If I were president, I would use assassination of the scientists as a weapon if I felt it was appropriate.  (More likely, I would wait for the Israelis to do it, since they have much more to lose).  That still doesn't prove that the US did it.

And although I don't much care for Obama, I am glad that at least he is SAYING that all options are on the table.  The main reason that I couldn't vote for Paul is that I couldn't rely on him to act in the country's best interests in foreign policies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 01, 2012, 07:37:32 pm
Dave, bullying other nations may seem to being in a nation's best interest in the short term, but very seldom is after even a few years.  What we are seeing in Iran right now is a result of what we did in 1951.  Then there is the issue of the legality of the action (for some reason I don't feel comfortable with the notion of a government which orders the killing of specific people without anything remotely resembling due process), the morality of it, and whether it is in fact in the national interest.  Free trade is always in the best interest of those on both ends of it.

What you could rely on with Paul is that he would act in a manner consistent with his stated philosophy.  He always has, and has not pandered to audiences or changed positions from one year to the next.

You want a president who will act in the country's best interest, with the assumption that such action will match your belief of what it should be AND that such action will in fact be in the nation's best interest.

To me it seems irresponsible to assume that presidents can in fact be counted on to make the right decision as to the nation's best interest when ordering covert action which kills people.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 01, 2012, 09:19:41 pm
jes beard I suppose some people are rendered speechless by your abject insanity, but I'm not one of them. Just serving up the CATO institute bather about the Great Deprtession are ya.

Japan was one of the countires which emerged out of the world depression caused by our Great Depression before we did. How did they do it?


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 01, 2012, 09:36:26 pm
The worst thing you can do is consistantly act in accordance with your stated policies, when your stated policies are wrong.

Obama acts in accordance with his stated policy of redistributing the wealth, and it is a terrible thing to do.

If Paul were to act in accordance with his stated foreign policies, it would be a disaster for the country.

Fortunately, he won't get a chance to do that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 02, 2012, 03:12:02 am
P2, what in Obama's record leads you to believe that he will effectively limit spending?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 07:15:07 am
The worst thing you can do is consistantly act in accordance with your stated policies, when your stated policies are wrong.

Obama acts in accordance with his stated policy of redistributing the wealth, and it is a terrible thing to do.

If Paul were to act in accordance with his stated foreign policies, it would be a disaster for the country.

Fortunately, he won't get a chance to do that.

And Paul's state policy of engagement without interfering in another nation's self-government is wrong.... how?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 02, 2012, 08:12:26 am
Tico, I don't believe Obama will support massive cuts in federal spending which is what many Repubs advocate.  But I know from personal experience that federal spending for even very popular programs (e.g., medical research) has plateaued.  The expectation is that this will continue (no matter who is elected President).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on February 02, 2012, 09:00:32 am
No matter what program President Obama proposes cutting, it will be described as vital by some Republicans.  NASA is one example.

Another way to look at it:  Obama was criticized when he did not immediately go look at the BP oil spill.  As soon as he did, we heard "why isn't he back in Washington taking care of the economy?"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 02, 2012, 09:03:03 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-is-prepared-to-launch-terrorist-attacks-in-us-intelligence-report-finds/2012/01/30/gIQACwGweQ_story.html

Let's see.... the US assassinates Iranian scientists in Iran, and now the US will feign surprise at Iran responding with terrorist attacks in the US.  About like the reaction to the embassy takeover in Iran with the fall of the Shaw, all while the US conveniently forgot that it had INSTALLED the Shaw in a coup in Iran almost 30 years earlier.... no reason to have expected any blow-back from that.




The Shaw?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 02, 2012, 11:13:25 am
Quote
No matter what program President Obama proposes cutting, it will be described as vital by some Republicans.

Lies, damn lies, and politics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 11:19:39 am
Tico, I don't believe Obama will support massive cuts in federal spending which is what many Repubs advocate.  But I know from personal experience that federal spending for even very popular programs (e.g., medical research) has plateaued.  The expectation is that this will continue (no matter who is elected President).

Actually not the case.

Newt has made clear that he would dramatically increase federal spending on medical research, and the idea that federal spending has "plateaued" is out of touch with reality.

Now, I am not mentioning Newt to suggest that I agree with him that federal spending on medical research should increase.  I merely point out that he supports it.  I think it would be a major mistake, and would hurt those patients who would most directly benefit from medical advances.  This is because increased federal spending on research actually serves to REDUCE overall spending on R&D in the area of research.

To see how this works -- http://jesbeard.com/?p=13

Economist researching the issue of government funding of research have impirically found to be true the same thing my essay suggests will happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 02, 2012, 11:20:39 am
Jes - Paul's policies on overseas disengagement are naive at best and idiotic at worst.  Like it or not, we HAVE people and countries that wish to do us harm, and will do so if given the opportunity.  Allowing them to develop nuclear weapons is idiotic, if there is anything we can do to prevent, or at least delay it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 11:49:50 am
dave, there are also individuals who wish to do us harm as individuals here in this country.  That doesn't mean that you can enter their home and kill those who you think might be involved in causing you harm in the future, or to steal their property to prevent it.

You keep referring to "allowing them to develop nuclear weapons," as if they were young children under our control.  They are not, and there is very little we can practically do to prevent it, other than doing things which will cause us even greater harm.

And Paul has NEVER urged disengagement.  In fact Paul encourages INCREASED engagement, just not in the form of sending them money or occupying other nations with our troops.

Right now we have so little "engagement" with Iran that we have no direct contact with them... and you apparently think that is a good idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 02, 2012, 12:23:05 pm
During the Clinton years, there was a doubling in the NIH budget as one way of investing the budget surplus.  In retrospect, this was probably unwise as the system cannot really absorb the shock of such a massive increase in funds effectively.  Many scientists were attracted to medical research, but once the period of large increases in funding was over there was markedly increased competition for the funds as well as increased NIH liability for funding the "out years" of approved grants (most of which are 4-5 years in duration).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 02, 2012, 01:21:59 pm
With those in this country that wish to harm us, we have our laws to prosecute them and our rights that protect them.  In foreign countries, we have neither.

No enemy is under our total control, but that does not mean that we have absolutely NO power to affect the outcome.  If we believe a country is a threat to us, we have the right to do what is necessary to and in that country to protect ourselves to the degree that we deem necessary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 02:02:02 pm
During the Clinton years, there was a doubling in the NIH budget as one way of investing the budget surplus.  In retrospect, this was probably unwise as the system cannot really absorb the shock of such a massive increase in funds effectively.  Many scientists were attracted to medical research, but once the period of large increases in funding was over there was markedly increased competition for the funds as well as increased NIH liability for funding the "out years" of approved grants (most of which are 4-5 years in duration).

I see that you did not point to any CUTS in spending on research.  You might have bought into Washington-speak where a slower rate of growth is considered a "cut," but a cut requires a reduction in spending or funding.

But the reality is that the best thing that could happen to medical research is that we end federal funding of it entirely.  That would result in more being spent overall on medical R&D.... just as I pointed out in my essay, and just as impirical data shows happens.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 02:41:22 pm
One of the biggest reasons Obama is toast -- http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-economic-approval-just-36-percent/355126
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on February 02, 2012, 03:09:36 pm
Why don't people take at face value that Obama offered very large spending cuts -- in programs dear to his base -- this past summer?  His base was furious at what it perceived as his genuine willingness to compromise at a time when the Keynesian approach (the one Democrats tend to credit) says that reigning in spending is nuts.  Yes, Obama is a Democrat.  But a socialist?  I truly don't understand the charge.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 02, 2012, 06:14:08 pm
East - I am not that familiar with his offer.  Was he offering actual reductions in overall spending, or merely reductions in future increases. 

As I remember it, all tax increases came in the next couple of years, while the reductions came at the end of the decade, when he would no longer be in a position to actually do the cutting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 06:25:33 pm
Yes, Obama is a Democrat.  But a socialist?  I truly don't understand the charge.

Obamacare is socialism.

His "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe the Plummer, when he did not know he was being recorded and was unguarded and sincere, was socialism.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPbCSSXyp0

His comments to WMMB radio in an interview in 2001 leaned quite clearly toward socialism.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM (This also includes a transcript of his interview.)

His father, who he admired and wanted to be like, was a socialist.

His mother, who he admired and wanted to be line, was  socialist.

His grandparents, who he admired and raised and educated him, were socialists.

His black role model, Frank Marshall Davis, was a socialist.

He has surrounded himself with advisors  who are big government socialists, including Van Jones.

He has talked about his belief not in individual salvation, or salvation which comes from belief in a savior (the standard Christian belief) or from good individual acts, but he has spoken of his belief in COLLECTIVE salvation, coming from societal taking from those who have wealth and giving to those who do not.... which amounts to socialism.

In his books he wrote of how when he was in college, he deliberately sought out professors and friends who were socialists and "hung out" with socialists.

His church pastor was not only a socialist, but a close friend.

Bill Ayers was a close associate and a socialist.

Since running for the Senate he has never admitted to having been a socialist in the past and repudiated those beliefs, but has instead danced around the issue.

And he has at every turn advanced policies which would at least incrementally move the United States further toward socialism.

To me the question is not how someone might think he is a socialist, but how anyone could think he is anything other than a socialist.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 08:41:00 pm
No enemy is under our total control, but that does not mean that we have absolutely NO power to affect the outcome.  If we believe a country is a threat to us, we have the right to do what is necessary to and in that country to protect ourselves to the degree that we deem necessary.

The pre-emption doctrine on steroids.

Forget about US law that makes such assassination illegal.  Forget about the Fifth Amendment (and the Habeas Corpus clause), which is not limited in application to US citizens or US soil.  And forget about international law.  If WE (embodied by the president acting unilaterally and without any review) decide someone poses a threat to us, then according to you we can and should kill them.  Period.

Yea, that is sure a great way to produce a safe world.

With those in this country that wish to harm us, we have our laws to prosecute them and our rights that protect them.  In foreign countries, we have neither.

Wrong.  The Bill of Rights is not limited in application to US soil or US citizens.  Not to sound to condescending, but read it some time.  While the Supreme Court  agrees with you that an actual "enemy combatant" is not fully protected by the Bill of Rights, it has never come close to suggesting that the president is able to determine anyone under the sun qualifies as an "enemy combatant," and being a scientist researching or developing weapons which might be used against us by a nation which is not at war with us, would not come close to qualifying.  See the cases of Rasul v Bush, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-334, Hamden v. Rumsfield http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/03-6696/#writing-ZS and Boumediene v. Bush  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html.

I understand that you likely sincerely believe what you are saying about the law.... but you are wrong.  Read the Bill of Rights.  Read the Habeas Corpus clause in Article 1, Section 9 http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html and the cases I cited.  It is hard to imagine you could do so and still hold the position that you do.  You might well still believe your position is what the law SHOULD be, but it is hard to imagine you could still believe that is what the law IS.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the US government, and it doesn't really matter where or who it is dealing with, other than during times of war.  And there is no way to conjure up a credible argument that we are "at war" with Iran.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 02, 2012, 09:35:25 pm
The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the US Government.  But the president is given war powers that allow him to suspend rights guaranteed in the first ten amendments.  Lincoln did it quite a bit during the Civil War.  He read the Habeas Corpus clause in Article 1, Section 9, and did it anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 10:16:49 pm
dave, the Bill of Rights was added AFTER the body of the Constitution, and, aside from the First Amendment, very clearly applies to ALL government, with no exception for the entire executive branch (which would be an unimaginable exception, and excepting the prez is excepting the entire executive branch, since we are not talking about his personal and direct actions, but instead the actions he directs the rest of the executive branch to take), so if the Bill of rights imposes any limits on government, and the Bill of Rights was added after the body of the Constitution, the limitations created by the Bill of Rights take priority.

And any claim that the Habeas Corpus clause does not apply during times of war or insurrection is limited to.... times of war or insurrection, and since the conditions of the clause are not met (those being "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion," we don't even need to address the issue of whether Congress has suspended Habeas Corpus (which it has not) since the Constitution would not allow it.

In other words, everything in my last post stands.  But I am curious as to where you find any language in the Constitution which says the "president is given war powers that allow him to suspend rights guaranteed in the first ten amendments," or where you would find that position adopted by the Supreme Court, particularly when the "war" we are now in was never declared as a war, and both Bush and Obama have said they expect the conditions which you are describing as a "war" to last for decades, 50 years or longer.  It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court buying such an approach, which would essentially be the permanent end to the Bill of Rights.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 02, 2012, 10:49:59 pm
I do not find such language in the constitution.  But the fact that the president has used that power and others, without any interference from the courts lead me to believe that the courts believe that he DOES have the power.

And he certainly SHOULD have that power.  To withhold it would be foolish.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 02, 2012, 10:54:56 pm
I do not find such language in the constitution.  But the fact that the president has used that power and others, without any interference from the courts lead me to believe that the courts believe that he DOES have the power.

And he certainly SHOULD have that power.  To withhold it would be foolish.

To grant it in an undeclared perpetual war would be even more foolish.

But the Courts HAVE addressed your notion.... in the three cases I mentioned, and in cases during WWI and WWII... and they did not agree with you.  The courts are not in the business of "interfering" with things, even when clearly unconstitutional.  They address specific issues in specific cases, which generally take years to reach the Supreme Court, and generally in our nation's history our wars are over before such cases would reach the Court.... except in this perpetual pretend war, which is much more an executive power grab than it is an actual war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 02, 2012, 11:33:57 pm
So far, the courts have treated the current was as a real war, rather than a pretend war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 12:01:25 am
That is in dealing with those who are perceived as the enemy in that war, and Iranian scientists would most certainly not qualify.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 12:50:02 am
In this case, they should.

Regardless, it is much more likely that Israeli agents did the killing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 08:36:30 am
For purposes of international relations, just as for purposes of interpersonal relations, appearances are reality.

The US has not only conducted itself in such a manner as to make it quite believable that the US was either directly and solely responsible or that it was directly involved, it's public comments and threats would lead to the same conclusion, whether true or not.

And the US will suffer the blowback associated with it.

As to whether Iranian scientists "should" be considered "enemy combatants" in a war which has not been declared, but which is merely feared some time in the future, could you articulate a legal standard allowing that interpretation or approach?  Or should we merely trust the infinite wisdom of whomever happens to hold the oval office that he or she will always correctly divine our enemies all on his or her lonesome and without review and then properly order their murder?

And how in the world do you rest easily that the next person so targeted is not you or someone you love?

I have mentioned before that I have been arrested seven times, and never convicted of anything.  In fact, all of the arrests were illegal.  While I do not much in the actions which allow judicial review and full due process and which are made in public view... I have no faith in the extrajudicial, unreviewed actions of government, and that certainly includes unilateral orders in which one one person orders the murder of another.... something you not only seem to bless, but outright demand.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 11:21:10 am
The war has been declared.  Congress authorized the president to use the force of arms against both Iraq and Afghanistan.  According to international law, this would also include their allies.

By the way, you are the first one to ever accuse me of loving Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 03, 2012, 11:25:18 am
Jes, do you think that the US got involved in WWII too soon, too late, or at about the right time?  What principles lead you to this?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 11:44:23 am
The war has been declared.  Congress authorized the president to use the force of arms against both Iraq and Afghanistan.  According to international law, this would also include their allies.

By the way, you are the first one to ever accuse me of loving Obama.

Dave, you are being disingenuous.

We are talking now about ordering the murders of Iranian scientists.

While you and I can argue in good faith about whether there was or was not a war declared with regard to Iraq or Afghanistan, no such good faith dispute can exist involving Iran.

There is NO basis for claiming we are at war with Iran.  And you know that.

You also know that there is no basis for claiming that Iran is an ally of Iraq or Afghanistan for purposes of war.

Now, as to me accusing you of loving Obama.... where did I do that?  It does seem that you should love his foreign policy, because it is essentially what you seem to advocate, but that is a different issue.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on February 03, 2012, 11:50:58 am
Jes, do you think that the US got involved in WWII too soon, too late, or at about the right time?  What principles lead you to this?
I recently watched a great Military Channel (DirecTV channel 287) four part series about Jimmy Doolittle's Tokyo raid.  One of his pilots talked about a time when he was invited to appear at a school.   After saying how poorly schools are now teaching history, he went on to say that he was introduced as a veteran of World War Eleven.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 11:57:44 am
Play, in Europe we should have entered the war earlier, and should have maintained a military in the 1930's which allowed us to do so.  And the basis for entry would have been the defense of allies and trade partners and the end of or prevention of genocide.

Asia was a very different matter.  We were attacked by Japan because of our own hostile policies toward Japan, and Japan was aggressive toward other nations in the area because of its trade needs.  With unrestricted trade, we likely would not have seen anything resembling the kind off aggression we saw from Japan.  But if Japan had attacked Korea and China, regardless the trade policies, I would not have seen that as a basis for the US to enter the war, absent Pearl Harbor.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 01:27:22 pm
Iran has given substantial support to those who have hurt us in the past, and want to do so in the future.  As president, if I didn't believe that an invasion or air strike was in the best interest of our country, I would order the assassinations.  You can sort out the law in any way you wish.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 02:26:30 pm
The law is pretty clear.  You would be violating it.  And you are essentially saying that the president should not be constrained by the law.

Pardon me for thinking that is a misguided approach.

Our own government poses a far greater risk to us than Iran ever could.  The only way to prevent that to to keep government strictly bound up by the rule of law, and to prevent it from becoming too large or powerful.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 02:54:45 pm
As president, I would not be restrained by a law that prevented me from protecting America from foreign enemies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Tuffy on February 03, 2012, 03:06:11 pm
We were attacked by Japan because of our own hostile policies toward Japan, and Japan was aggressive toward other nations in the area because of its trade needs. 

Jes, while I agree with you about what a good president Paul would make and about libertarianism in general, I think you've got this quote here wrong.  There was no excuse at all for Japan's disgusting rampage through China, beginning in 1931 with their fabricated railway explosion incident.  The US was fully justified in its trade policies with Japan at that time.  Fifty years later, not so much, but in the '30s?  Japan deserved to get embargoed.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 06:21:14 pm
As president, I would not be restrained by a law that prevented me from protecting America from foreign enemies.

dave, you keep forgetting that we are not at war with Iran.

Nixon was convinced the Black Panthers, the anti-war demonstrations in the streets, and ultimately that the DNC were enemies of America and did not feel constrained by the law in dealing with any of them.

Nixon was wrong.  He was CRIMINALLY wrong, and he would have been prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned if not for Ford pardoning him.  And as a nation we likely would have been much the better for it.

I know it is a strange idea, but some of us believe that the president of the US, whoever that might be at any time, has far more opportunity and ability to cause irreparable harm to the nation than Iran ever could.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 06:33:52 pm
Jes, while I agree with you about what a good president Paul would make and about libertarianism in general, I think you've got this quote here wrong.  There was no excuse at all for Japan's disgusting rampage through China, beginning in 1931 with their fabricated railway explosion incident.  The US was fully justified in its trade policies with Japan at that time.  Fifty years later, not so much, but in the '30s?  Japan deserved to get embargoed.   

No.

I may have my facts COMPLETELY wrong, and I wouldn't stand too firmly by everything I said about the situation that existed at that time.... but I didn't get a quote wrong, because I wasn't quoting anyone.

If it is wrong, the error is entirely mine, not an error of anyone I am quoting or in quoting anyone.

But your comment that Japan "deserved to get embargoed," while it may be entirely true, misses the issue.

The question with international relations is not one of what another nation deserves or does not deserve.  If the United States got everything it deserved for our treatment of slaves, for our treatment of native Americans, for our treatment of Mexico, for our treatment of much of Latin America in the 1800's thru at least 1950, for our involvement in Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagazaki, and for giving eastern Europe to Stalin, we would all either instantly be dead, or never have been born in the first place.

It is not about what someone else deserves.  It is a question of what effect your policies will have on others and on your own nation, and what kind of nation you want to be, including whether you want to be a nation of laws or a nation of absolute and unlimited power in the hands of a president.

Our trade policies with Japan in the late 1930's right thru Pearl Harbor were such that they nearly forced Japan to attack, certainly could have been seen as likely to bring an attack, and it appears were even INTENDED to provoke Japan to attack.

Does that excuse the attack on Pearl Harbor?  Not at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 07:03:21 pm
dave, you keep forgetting that we are not at war with Iran.


Jes - you keep forgetting that Iran is a major supporter of terrorism, much of it directed against the United States and it's allies.  As I said before, as president, I would do what I felt had to be done to protect my country and it's interests from foreign enemies.

You keep trying to change the subject.  Domestic criminals, such as the Black Panthers (if that is what they were) should be dealt with through our legal system.  Not so, foreign enemies, unless we feel it is feasible to do so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 07:30:24 pm
No, dave, I am not trying to change the subject, but trying to get you to grasp it.

Absent a declaration of war, the Bill of Rights applies with equal force to actions by the US in dealing with US citizens on US soil as it does US citizens when they are overseas, or when it deals with foreign citizens on US soil, or when it deals with foreign citizens on foreign soil.

There is no distinction.

The limitation is on the US government.

You contend that Iran is "a major support of terrorism," but "terrorism" is not an enemy, it is a tactic, and a tactic which the US has itself at times used.

I know that a lot of conservative/Republican commentators and politicians have been loudly claiming for 10 years now that the Bill of Rights does not apply to anyone other than citizens on US soil, but they are full of sh*t, spouting rhetoric having no relation to fact, and utterly ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.  There is utterly nothing in the Bill of Rights, or the debate over the ratification, to suggest such an interpretation.

Fervently wanting the Constitution to allow or prohibit something does not either add or remove any language to or from the document.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 08:08:31 pm
No, Jes.  I grasp your point.  But I reject it.

I agree that the Bill of Rights is an excellent way to place limits on a government in it's dealings with it's own people.  But I reject those limits when dealing with foreign enemies.

When we are at war with foreign enemies, whether declared or not, I do not want the government to be restricted by the same limits that we place upon it for domestic criminals.  I don't want them to have to get a search warrant before searching an enemy stronghold for weapons or intelligence.  I don't want them to have to have a court to declare an enemy guilty before killing him.  I don't want to force the government to wait until the enemy attacks before striking at them.

Great for domestic policies.  Bad for foreign policies.

You have a bad habit of assuming that if someone doesn't agree with you, they must not understand you.  I understand perfectly.  I just don't agree.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 08:25:59 pm
No, Jes.  I grasp your point.  But I reject it.

I agree that the Bill of Rights is an excellent way to place limits on a government in it's dealings with it's own people.  But I reject those limits when dealing with foreign enemies.

No, dave, you are still missing the point.

You are talking about what you WANT the Constitution to say or allow.  I am talking about what it DOES say and allow.

Whether it is a good idea for the Constitution to take this approach is different from whether it DOES take that approach.

If you and I were free to write the Constitution from scratch, your desires as to what you would want, and your belief as to what would be a good idea or a bad idea would have tremendous importance, and I might well agree with you on much of it.

But that is not the current situation.

The current situation is that the Constitution exists, and the question is whether we want to have the government, our government, bound by its own law or whether instead of changing the law we simply bless the idea of having government ignore the law.

If we bless the government ignoring the law, I see no reason to believe we will be able to use the law to restrain government in dealing with us.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 09:36:15 pm
I do not have a clear understanding of exactly how you envision a war should be conducted.  Let's take a specific example.

Let us say that Congress HAD declared war on Iraq to your satisfaction.  A colonel stationed there has men that are under fire by the enemy every evening after dark.  A local comes to you and says that there is a house on his block that is a safe house for insurgents.  He has seen them coming and going, fully armed, bragging about the enemy they have killed.

Should the Colonel have to get a search warrant, as the Bill of Rights states?  Must a trial be held and they be found guilty before he can go in there with guns blazing?  And if he captures anyone, does he have to give him his rights, and bring him to a speedy trial?

You are a little vague on these issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 03, 2012, 11:02:40 pm
Dave, let's say we did declare war on Iraq.  You and I disagree on that, but let's say we did.

When does it or did it end?

When we overthrew the government and occupied the nation?

When we captured Saddam?

When Saddam was executed?

When he hung around until a government was installed which met our approval?

When we pulled out?

Is it over yet?

Will it ever be over?

The question is not one of how war should be conducted, but what is war, when is it declared, and who does the declaration apply to?

You say I am vague on issues related to how a war is to be waged, but I have not even been discussing that.  There is nothing for me to have been vague on in a discussion which I was not having.

YOU, however, are more than a little vague on what is or isn't war, how it is declared, how it is ended.

The United States was at one time at war with the Seminole nation in Florida, and the Seminole never surrendered or entered into a treaty to end that war, and Congress never declared an end to it (just as I don't believe it ever really declared a beginning to it).  So are we still at war with the Seminole?  Could the Federal government suspend Habeas Corpus and other Constitutional rights in the name of waging the un-ended Seminole War?

Of course that is absurd, but at what point does it become so?

Bush and Obama have both spoken about the "war or terror" lasting until 2050 or beyond.

At what point does it end, particularly when it was never declared, and we have nothing remotely resembling an identifiable enemy or objective or field of battle?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 03, 2012, 11:40:42 pm
I'm sorry, Jes.  That was an excellent answer, but it had nothiung to do with my question.  I am trying to understand exactly how you envision the Bill of Rights function is a war.  I will ask the specific HYPOTHETICAL question again.

Let us say that Congress HAD declared war on (insert country here) to your satisfaction.  On the first day of the war, a colonel stationed there has men that are under fire by the enemy every evening after dark.  A local comes to you and says that there is a house on his block that is a safe house for insurgents.  He has seen them coming and going, fully armed, bragging about the enemy they have killed.

Should the Colonel have to get a search warrant, as the Bill of Rights states?  Must a trial be held and they be found guilty before he can go in there with guns blazing?  And if he captures anyone, does he have to give him his rights, and bring him to a speedy trial?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 04, 2012, 09:36:06 am
dave, we are not AT war.  Your question is utterly irrelevant, not only because we are we NOT at war, but more importantly because, according to you, whether we are would make no difference, and what the Constitution does or does not say makes no difference.

The real questions are what does the Constitution say and mean, and will it apply.

You seemingly argue that the words and meaning of the Constitution are unimportant, because you would like the Constitution to say or allow a particular approach, and that even if what it says and means is clear, you don't really care or want the president bound by it and want someone as president who would ignore the Constitution in situations when you personally would like it ignored.

If you do not like what it says or means, CHANGE IT.  Don't advocate ignoring the Constitution, the way progressives have done for the last 100 years.  There is a process to change the Constitution.  The process is called amendment.  If you want presidents to have the unilateral, absolutely unchecked and unreviewable power to determine on their lonesome that someone poses an unacceptable danger to the US and then to have that person, or those unlimited numbers of people, killed, have at it.  Try to get that concept written into law.

But at least be honest about what you are doing, instead of refusing to face it directly by avoiding that issue and conjuring up hypotheticals which do not even begin to face the situation at hand.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 04, 2012, 11:32:46 am
dave, we are not AT war.  Your question is utterly irrelevant, not only because we are we NOT at war, but more importantly because, according to you, whether we are would make no difference, and what the Constitution does or does not say makes no difference.


Jes, the question is a hypothetical one.  It has NOTHING to do with the Iraq war, which is why I said (insert your country here).  It is meant to get you to explain your point in enough detail that we can both understand it.

So I will ask again,

Let us say that Congress HAD declared war on (insert country here) to your satisfaction.  On the first day of the war, a colonel stationed there has men that are under fire by the enemy every evening after dark.  A local comes to you and says that there is a house on his block that is a safe house for insurgents.  He has seen them coming and going, fully armed, bragging about the enemy they have killed.

Should the Colonel have to get a search warrant, as the Bill of Rights states?  Must a trial be held and they be found guilty before he can go in there with guns blazing?  And if he captures anyone, does he have to give him his rights, and bring him to a speedy trial?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 04, 2012, 04:48:28 pm
Dave, if your question has relevance to you, fine.  Answer it for yourself.

It has none to me.  It is not relevant to a single point I have tried to make or a single issue I have been discussing, so I have no intention of responding.  I also will not respond to questions about how a person should wash is back or his backside.  Neither the issue nor the answer really concern me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BillSharp on February 07, 2012, 05:31:52 am
Wow, who knew the United States Constitution applies to every human being on the planet?

I don't know how I missed that part of the document.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 07, 2012, 07:43:21 am
Bill, the Constitution applies TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything which commands you to do anything, or requires you to do anything.

It instead establishes the government, sets up the way that it is to operate, and puts limitations on the government.  That's it.

Nowhere is there any suggestion that the First Amendment, just for one example, applies only to US citizens, or that the government can restrict freedom of speech or religion of non-citizens, or that non-citizens care not entitled to trials or can be tortured or subjected to indefinite detention and denied counsel.

You might want to read it some time.

It would appear that you either have not read it, have forgotten what is in it, or didn't quite grasp it before if you did read it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 07, 2012, 09:45:09 am
Starting right after Hiroshima, each time a country was about to go nuclear Washington went out of its way to sound the alarm, warning of the dire consequences that would surely follow. From 1945 to 1949 it was the Soviet Union which, once it had succeeded in building nuclear weapons, was supposed to make an attempt at world conquest.

In the 1950s it was America’s own clients, Britain and France, who were regarded as the offenders and put under pressure. Between 1960 and 1993, first China, then Israel (albeit to a limited extent) and finally India and Pakistan were presented as the black sheep, lectured, put under pressure and occasionally subjected to sanctions. Since then, the main victim of America’s peculiar belief that it alone is sufficiently good and sufficiently responsible to possess nuclear weapons has been North Korea.

As the record shows, in none of these cases did the pessimists’ visions come true. Neither Stalin, Mao nor any of the rest set out to conquer the world. It is true that, as one country after another joined the nuclear club, Washington’s ability to threaten them or coerce them declined.

However, nuclear proliferation did not make the world into a noticeably worse place than it had always been — and if anything, to the contrary. As Europe, the Middle East and South Asia demonstrate quite well, in one region after another the introduction of nuclear weapons led, if not to brotherhood and peace, then at any rate to the demise of large-scale warfare between states.

Given the balance of forces, it cannot be argued that a nuclear Iran will threaten the United States. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fulminations to the contrary, the Islamic Republic will not even be a threat to Israel. The latter has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack.

Should deterrence fail, Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert — a fact of which Iranians are fully aware. Iran’s other neighbors, such as Russia, Pakistan and India, can look after themselves. As it is, they seem much less alarmed by developments in Iran than they do by those thousands of miles away in Washington.

The main countries to feel the impact of a nuclear Iran will surely be those of the Persian Gulf. This is not because Tehran is likely to drop a bomb on Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates; rather, the Iranian regime may feel less constrained in dealing with its neighbors across the Gulf.

- Martin Van Creveld, Israeli military historian and theorist, "Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle", http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/

Before anyone asks, yes, I agree with every word the guy wrote.

And also before anyone asks if I want Iran to have nukes or if I prefer Iran NOT have nukes, certainly I do not want Iran to have nukes and would prefer that Iran not have nukes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 07, 2012, 11:11:16 pm
Discussing anything with davepe is a waste of time.

Dude just read the Norsk Sagas and declare that the Constitution is something conservatives place in their shirt pocket to break out at small tea party rallies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 08, 2012, 12:08:45 am
Oddo's grasp of the contitution is equal to his grasp of the science (or lack thereof) of global warming.

I used to think he graduated from PS 137 University of Wisconsin.  But I am suspecting that he fluncked out in about 6th grade.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 08, 2012, 07:24:54 am
Oddo's grasp of the contitution is equal to his grasp of the science (or lack thereof) of global warming.

I used to think he graduated from PS 137 University of Wisconsin.  But I am suspecting that he fluncked out in about 6th grade.

Is "fluncked" a combination word like "smog"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 08, 2012, 10:38:09 am
Are we as a nation capable of ending programs which simply do not work?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html

IN THE ARENA
Time to Ax Public Programs That Don't Yield Results
By Joe Klein

Both "liberal" and "conservative" subsidies linger in perpetuity, sometimes metastasizing into embarrassing giveaways. Even the best-intentioned programs are allowed to languish in waste and incompetence. Take, for example, the famed early-education program called Head Start.

The idea is, as Newt Gingrich might say, simple liberal social engineering. You take the million or so poorest 3- and 4-year-old children and give them a leg up on socialization and education by providing preschool for them; if it works, it saves money in the long run by producing fewer criminals and welfare recipients — and more productive citizens. Indeed, Head Start did work well in several pilot programs carefully run by professionals in the 1960s. And so it was "taken to scale," as the wonks say, as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.
It is now 45 years later. We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.
According to the Head Start Impact Study, which was quite comprehensive, the positive effects of the program were minimal and vanished by the end of first grade. Head Start graduates performed about the same as students of similar income and social status who were not part of the program. These results were so shocking that the HHS team sat on them for several years, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution, who said, "I guess they were trying to rerun the data to see if they could come up with anything positive. They couldn't."

The Head Start situation is a classic among government-run social programs. Why do so many succeed as pilots and fail when taken to scale? In this case, the answer is not particularly difficult to unravel. It begins with a question: Why is Head Start an HHS program and not run by the Department of Education? The answer: Because it is a last vestige of Johnson's War on Poverty, which was run out of the old Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The War on Poverty attempted to rebuild poor communities from the bottom up, using local agencies called community action programs. These outfits soon proved slovenly; often they were little more than patronage troughs for local Democratic Party honchos — and, remarkably, to this day, they remain the primary dispensers of Head Start funds. As such, they are far more adept at dispensing make-work jobs than mastering the subtle nuances of early education. "The argument that Head Start opponents make is that it is a jobs program," a senior Obama Administration official told me, "and sadly, there is something to that."
This is criminal, every bit as outrageous as tax breaks for oil companies — perhaps even more outrageous, since we are talking about the lives of children. Happily, the Administration is taking steps to clean up the mess and channel money to the local programs that work most effectively, but a more complete overhaul will undoubtedly be needed. There are those who argue that this is a fool's errand, that the federal government simply can't run an effective local education program. They are called conservatives, and they have a point. Then there are those who say that even if Head Start isn't working so well, at least it's funneling money to poor neighborhoods that need it. They are called liberals, and they have a point too.
Both are wrong: in these straitened times, we need world-class education programs, from infancy on up. But we can no longer afford to be sloppy about dispensing cash to programs that do not produce a return.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 08, 2012, 11:12:22 am
ISF, just wondering if your guy Santorum pulls off the miracle and wins the nomination, are you going to be doing any work for him nationally or anything like that?

Have to admit, I'm still not sure where last night came from, but winning all three of those states last night might be a turning point in the race. 
 
I've pretty much gotten to the point where I detest Gingrich and am starting to warm to Santorum a little bit, although I still don't like his social policies very much at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 08, 2012, 11:17:24 am
Santorum will be an easy target in a general election.  It is extremely easy to demonize a social conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 08, 2012, 11:26:17 am
Yeah I'd agree with that, although I think I'm starting to appreciate the argument that he can connect with blue collar people really well.  The times I've listened to Santorum, he's actually pretty impressive to listen to on things like health care.  You can tell he has a pretty deep understanding of any issue he comes across.

But he's just very very conservative socially.  I didn't like the other day where he criticized Romney for requiring Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to offer contraception for **** victims.  I saw him in a town hall in New Hampshire talk about how guns were a family tradition with him, which just seems odd and pandering to the pro-gun crowd.  He's probably too conservative for me on national security issues.

If he wasn't a down the book social conservative, I could see myself ethusiastically supporting him.  He comes across as being smart while also down to earth and able to connect with people, which Romney doesn't.  But I'd agree that his social positions would make him a pretty easy target against Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 08, 2012, 11:27:50 am
Santorum has the added problem of not actually supporting small government, limited government, Constitutional government, or civil liberties.  He supported the unfunded Bush drug plan, he STILL supports endless war, he likes the idea of the president being able to unilaterally order the murder of anyone the president decides poses a danger to the United States, wants to direct economic decisions in general and investment decisions in particular, and is not particularly concerned about limiting the role of the federal government in dealing with the states.

The results yesterday were largely the result of a rather foolish decision by the Romney camp to spend virtually no money on advertising in any of the three states.  Big mistake.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 08, 2012, 11:29:31 am
I think Santorum would make an even better Republican candidate than Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 08, 2012, 11:30:56 am
The results yesterday were largely the result of a rather foolish decision by the Romney camp to spend virtually no money on advertising in any of the three states.  Big mistake.

Yeah that's also something I'm not starting to like about Romney.  For someone who's supposed to be (and I still think probably is) the best general election candidate, he's made a lot of strategic and tactical blunders so far.  He didn't release his tax returns in South Carolina and made that an easy issue for Gingrich.  He flat out said he didn't care about the very poor, which even if he does have a point about there being a safety net for them, is still dumb for any politician to say.  And he didn't recognize the threat from Santorum yesterday until it was too late. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 08, 2012, 11:37:15 am
Seems like Romney is playing a lot of prevent defense in the primaries, and even if the competition he's facing isn't that great, you know what they say about prevent defense.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 08, 2012, 11:38:08 am
he's made a lot of strategic and tactical blunders so far.

While that is true, his two biggest blunders are things that he can not really change at this point.

1) He is a Mormon, running for the nomination in a party with a very large percentage of folks who are rather closed minded on religious issues and who consider Mormons to be unacceptable.... or at the very least not preferable.

2) He has been in the past rather liberal on a number of issues, forcing him to change positions and be considered by many as unreliable to support the positions the primary voters want.

As a result of those two factors, a large percentage of Republican primary voters are eager to find someone else, ANYONE else, who they think is more "like" them and is more reliable to take conservative positions in office.

Those are things Romney simply can not change.

What he COULD have done, however, was to do his best to bury the competition yesterday, and he did not.  And you are right that was a tactical blunder.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 08, 2012, 12:16:51 pm
LOL

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2012/43_say_random_choices_from_phone_book_better_than_current_congress
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 08, 2012, 02:30:46 pm
ISF, just wondering if your guy Santorum pulls off the miracle and wins the nomination, are you going to be doing any work for him nationally or anything like that?

Nationally? No. Should he win the nomination, it is extremely likely I will be involved in running his campaign in Eastern IA.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 08, 2012, 03:46:31 pm
Rasmussem is a joke. I can only imagne the response when one of their polls produced that 43% think random people out of a phone book could do a better job than rep. Orangeman and rep Can'tor. Their leadership of the house republic has caused the historic low congressional approval ratings.

Hurry! Rush out another poll of same congress beating Democractic pols in another pol so foxaganda can cite that poll as narrative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on February 08, 2012, 04:28:23 pm
The results yesterday were largely the result of a rather foolish decision by the Romney camp to spend virtually no money on advertising in any of the three states.  Big mistake.

The Romney camp DID bombard those of us in Colorado for the past two weeks with phone calls; "Hi, this is Mitt Romney,"; "Hi, this is Ann Romney,"; "Hi, this is Jill for Mitt,"; "Hi, this is Joslyn for Mitt," and so on and so on...

One day there were six calls from the Romney campaign.   Two from Mitt that day.  Stalker.

I tell you, if I ever wanted to vote for him the phone calls sure would have changed that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 08, 2012, 04:49:17 pm
heh...that's why I don't put political bumper stickers on my car.  I doubt if anyone is going to vote for Anderson just because of my sticker, but if I cut somebody off and their sheet cake in the back splatters against the windshield, I think I could cost him some votes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 08, 2012, 11:08:47 pm
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-obamas-approval-below-reelection-standard/364946
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 09, 2012, 09:31:36 am
I really liked this column by George Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-need-more-than-rhetoric-on-defense/2012/02/07/gIQA5SF1zQ_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-need-more-than-rhetoric-on-defense/2012/02/07/gIQA5SF1zQ_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 09, 2012, 11:09:33 am
Thanks, JR.  That was a very good read.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 09, 2012, 03:14:40 pm
Yeah I just thought that really reflected a lot of what I'm not liking about what most Republican views are on the military and national security.

Yes, I think having a strong military is important, and I don't want a President who's naive about the threats we face (and honestly I don't think Obama, Leon Panetta, and Hillary Clinton are that naive . . . hopefully Hillary's successor won't be if Obama gets re-elected). 

At the same time, we're running trillion dollar deficits, and like Will mentioned, we're spending 43% of the world's military expenses and are outspending the next 17 highest military spending countries combined.  Yet, every one of the Republican candidates make it sound like we're still not doing enough with our military.  As much as I respect Paul Ryan's budget and that unlike just about everyone else in politics, he's actually put one out on the table, the one area he's not really touching in spite of our budget problems is our military spending, even with as much as our military totally dominates the rest of the world's militaries right now.  When you're running trillion dollar deficits, you can't afford everything you want, and that includes a military that's spending 43% of the world's military expenses.  As Will says, outspending the next 10 closest countries combined militarily ought to be more than adequate to meet our defense needs.  I'm not really sympathetic to the idea that we ought to be spending even more militarily than we are now, and I don't think anything should be off the table when it comes to closing trillion dollar budget deficits.

I also don't want another Iraq war, and like Will said, just listening to the rhetoric from the Republican candidates, particularly Gingrich and Santorum, I almost get the feeling it would be a greater than 50-50 chance that they would go to war with Iran at some point in their presidencies, regardless if circumstances change significantly with Iran or not.   I don't want a President who's naive about the threat Iran faces, but I don't want a President who's itching to pull the trigger on the first decent politically opportune time that presents itself either.  I really don't have that kind of confidence with Gingrich or Santorum. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 09, 2012, 04:19:41 pm
The military to republic politicans is a sacred cow. They cannot spend enough or deny any corporate defense compamnies requested next best weapon. No amount of facts will change a time worn campaign whine against Democratic politicans. Much like the nixon inspired law and order strategy with of southern racism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 09, 2012, 04:54:08 pm
Nixon did a better job of reducing southern racism than Obama has done in reducing black racism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 09, 2012, 08:41:34 pm
I don't want a President who's naive about the threat Iran faces, but I don't want a President who's itching to pull the trigger on the first decent politically opportune time that presents itself either.

Paul is not the least bit niave about Iran.  He merely is quite realistic.  http://bbf.createaforum.com/general-discussion/politics-religion-etc-etc/?message=55286
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on February 09, 2012, 09:12:24 pm
Newt's calling me now.  I think it's a wee bit late.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 10, 2012, 02:06:38 pm
There has been a controversy concerning religious institutions (mainly the Catholic Church) being required to provide contraception services to it's employees through their health care plans.  Today Obama solved the problem by announcing that such institutions do NOT have to provide those services.

But in such cases, although the Church does not have to provide and pay for them, the insurance company must provide these services free of charge.

Just out of curiosity, what gives the Federal Government the right to tell a private company that they must give their products away free of charge?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 10, 2012, 02:35:38 pm
Dave, it was not just the Catholic church and it wasn't just contraception.  Many Christian companies, agencies, and denominations were being required to pay for insurance that covered abortions and contraception. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 10, 2012, 03:08:46 pm
I realize that, Curt.  In fact one of the most contentious issues is that of the" morning after" pill, that creates abortions.

However, that is extraneous to the question "can the Federal Government decree that a private company (in this case an insurance company) give away it's product for free.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 11, 2012, 09:07:15 am
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-surges-into-the-lead.html

Santorum surges into the lead

Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul.

Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity. 64% of voters see him favorably to only 22% with a negative one. But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability is barely above water at 44/43, representing a 23 point net decline from our December national poll when he was +24 (55/31). Gingrich has fallen even further. A 44% plurality of GOP voters now hold a negative opinion of him to only 42% with a positive one. That's a 34 point drop from 2 months ago when he was at +32 (60/28).

Santorum is now completely dominating with several key segments of the electorate, especially the most right leaning parts of the party. With those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' he's now winning a majority of voters at 53% to 20% for Gingrich and 15% for Romney.  Santorum gets a majority with Tea Party voters as well at 51% to 24% for Gingrich and 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he falls just short of a majority with 45% to 21% for Gingrich and 18% for Romney.

It used to be that Gingrich was leading with all these groups and Romney was staying competitive enough with them to hold the overall lead. No more- a consensus conservative candidate finally seems to be emerging and it's Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 11, 2012, 09:20:14 am
I'm starting to think if Gingrich gets out of the way that Santorum is probably the favorite to win the nomination.  He'll have the Midwest and South all to himself at that point.  Romney certainly isn't going to beat a strong social conservative in the South, and he hasn't been able to beat Santorum in the Midwest yet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 11, 2012, 10:50:31 am
Romney is a Northeastern Liberal, much as Nelson Rockefeller was.  And like Rockefeller, he is having a difficult time gaining traction in the more conservative areas of the country.

I wish there were another alternative than Santorum.  But Perry was destroyed quite early, and the others had very little executive experience.

Sure wish that Scott Walker had been around for a little while longer.  Or that Rubio were the Governor of Florida, rather than the Senator.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 11, 2012, 10:51:57 am
Mitch Daniels
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 11, 2012, 11:49:20 am
I still think Santorum would get absolutely thrashed in the general for all the reasons that are mentioned as positives above: he polls well with those who describe themselves as very conservative, he polls well with tea-partiers, etc. Might help him towards the nomination, but won't help for the real thing. Not only will he fail to attract the undecided and moderate vote (which is the key to the election), he'll also mobilize the far left much more than Romney would.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 11, 2012, 11:51:35 am
If you're going to be as right-leaning as Santorum is,  you have to have some sort of pull with a minority group that would not normally go your way. For example, Rubio, who is probably as right-leaning as Santorum on most social policy issues, would seem to be more electable given his pull with Latino voters. Does Santorum have anything like that going for him? I'm unaware of any such factors.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 11, 2012, 12:20:12 pm
Romney is no where near a Rockefeller Republican.  He is pro-life, he is for a smaller federal government, he is pro-traditional marriage, he is not for amnesty.  Just because he comes from the northeast doesn't mean he isn't conservative.  As a Romney supporter I will admit he doesn't articulate the conservative message as well as some but he governed as a conservative as a governor and would do so as President.  His healthcare plan was put together by the Heritage foundation and was a conservative idea for decades.  Personal responsibility, if you can afford your own coverage then the government isn't going to pay for you.  Those are conservative principles.  Looking at his record and his plans for the future I don't know what more he could do other than learn a southern accent and run for governor of Georgia.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 11, 2012, 12:47:30 pm
Personal responsibility, if you can afford your own coverage then the government isn't going to pay for you.

LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 11, 2012, 01:27:42 pm
It will be interesting to see how Romney campaigns against Santorum, given that Rick is probably as squeaky clean (if not more so) than Mitt.

Romney won't get anything by characterizing Santorum as too-conservative on social issues, even though that's his biggest weakness in a general election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 11, 2012, 01:42:50 pm
Romney's been trying to portray Santorum as some Washington insider who loves earmarks and raising the debt limit, and that tact isn't going to work with him.

Romney needs to be the candidate of the economy, and fair or unfair, when you think of Santorum, you think of someone who isn't as interested in the economy as he is on social issues and talking tough on Iran.  The general election is going to be about the economy, and Romney has to talk that up and present some positive ideas to get some contrast with Santorum.

One thing that's working to Santorum's advantage right now is that the hot button issue everyone is discussing is the Catholic/abortion controversy with Obamacare, which is a really bad issue for Romney and a perfect one for Santorum. It might be interesting to see what happens once that issue dies down in a week or two and the economy goes back to being the top issue.

Of course Santorum might win Michigan by then and build some major momentum.  If Santorum builds momentum and Gingrich gets out of the race, Romney is in serious trouble.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 11, 2012, 03:10:48 pm
Romney needs to stop trying to hide his wealth and success. He is a successful business man that has managed to acumulate wealth. No need to apologize or hide from that fact. Stop trying to paint yourself as a common man and go with your strength. You know business. Any voter that has a problem with becoming wealthy and succcessful isn't going to vote republican anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 11, 2012, 04:08:51 pm
Santorum might win the nomination, but there are an awful lot of Republicans that are afraid of social conservatives, and a lot of social conservatives that believe that the economy is the most important issue at the present time.  The tea partiers were strong last election because they ignored the social issues and drew a lot of economic conservatives into their movement.  Since then, they have fragmented so much that they are not likely to be much of an issue, at least in the primaries.

The only chance that I see for Santorum is if he ignores social issues and campaigns only on a "smaller and less intrusive government".  Those for whom social issues are most important are going to vote for him anyway, and he needs the "smaller government" crowd to come over to his side.  Many Republicans believe that Romney is a lot like Bush.  He doesn't want a smaller government.  He just wants a larger Republican government, which is the same weakness that Gingrich had.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 11, 2012, 04:21:44 pm
On the size of government, I think a lot of people think Romney is Bush 41 and Santorum is Bush 43.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 11, 2012, 04:29:27 pm
I love the narrative right now regarding Romney and Santorum.  Romney shouldn't attack Santorum seems to be the plea of everyone in the media.  The problem is, Santorum does nothing but attack Romney.  He spent his CPAC speech doing it.  He spent his victory speech Tuesday doing it and that's pretty much all he does in debates.  If Santorum attacks him then I want Mitt to return fire.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 11, 2012, 04:31:04 pm
People on the right are not allowed to change their minds or compromise or to try to find solutions that might be interpreted as liberal.  Mitt's efforts to prevent chaos in the health care market in Massachusetts continues to be held against him, as well as his changing his mind on abortion.  Conservatives will always be suspicious of him.

People on the left can flaunt their changing of their minds.  Clinton was firmly anti-abortion in order to get to be governor of Arkansas and as soon as he decided to go for President had an epiphany because he wasn't going to get the nomination as a anti-abortion candidate.  Nobody said, oh, I think he's really still anti-abortion. 

Personally, if a candidate can't change his mind, why all the efforts to go to rallies, sign petitions, and write or phone our representatives.  Paradox.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 11, 2012, 04:47:33 pm
I am sure that Romney will run ad attacks against Santorum, or at least the superpacs that back him will.  They couldn't possible be more vicious than those they ran against Gingrich in Florida.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 11, 2012, 05:05:53 pm
Dave P..agreed. They were nasty and more importantly on the air constantly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 11, 2012, 05:24:17 pm
Santorum carries key states in the rust belt like Pennsylvania and Ohio because he has been friendly to the unions.
Given the jobs situation and Santorum's plan to bring Mfg jobs back by offering 0% corporate tax for repatriating, Obama will have a hard time beating him in those states. Santorum is already polling well against him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 11, 2012, 07:24:19 pm
I don't think the government should be creating winners and losers.  Why is manufacturing more important than tech or services or finance?  Why do they merit special treatment.  You either believe in the free market or you don't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 11, 2012, 08:25:06 pm
Good point. And given Romney gave us the template for ObamaCare, it's clear where he stands on that.

Santorum, Mr. Electable?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577215263708006278.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 11, 2012, 10:12:16 pm
The Republicans ought to nominate a candidate who has the courage of his convictions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 11, 2012, 10:15:55 pm
ISF,  Romneycare uses private insurance.  It isn't Universal like his legislature planned when they began. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 11, 2012, 10:40:02 pm
On the size of government, I think a lot of people think Romney is Bush 41 and Santorum is Bush 43.

You need to explain that a little more.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 11, 2012, 10:57:41 pm
Do you know what the margin of error is for those polls cited in that WSJ piece? Honestly, that looks like nothing more than shoddy journalism without those figures.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on February 11, 2012, 11:34:26 pm
LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 12, 2012, 12:14:25 am
Not sure what the LOL is about, but when a reporter drubs up a poll showing a 4% difference, it's a worthwhile question to ask, given that the margins of error for these kinds of polls often exceeds 4%.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 12, 2012, 12:32:01 am
He was LOLing because you were criticizing Fox News.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 12, 2012, 12:57:05 am
You need to explain that a little more.

I think Santorum probably leans towards the kind of "compassionate" conservatism of George W. Bush.  He voted for No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Expansion, and he's been active in things like the AIDS crisis in Africa, just to name a couple of examples.   Just watched on CNN this morning a campaign ad he had in 2006 where he touted that he voted to raise the minimum wage and opposed Bush's efforts to reduce Amtrak funding.

Really I think Santorum is probably a lot like George W. Bush in his views.  Very religious social conservative (actually probably more so), very aggressive foreign policy, and while not a huge government guy, doesn't mind the government getting involved in a few things socially either.  Really I think the only area where he would have done things a lot differently than Bush 43 would have been immigration reform.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 12, 2012, 08:40:04 am
Santorum would not end all foreign aid. He considers it essential to keeping our relations in a good place with countries that would very easily be lured into becoming havens for groups like Al Qaeda.

RomneyCare is a government mandate to buy a product. Unlike the auto insurance mandate most states have, it is not tied to licensed operation.
You are mandated to buy it because you are still breathing oxygen.

Electing Romney gives voters a choice:

Vote for a guy who spent his Executive experience in government passing a government mandate for health insurance while struggling to foster an environment of job creation....and Barack Obama.

That's a fight we will have difficulty winning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 12, 2012, 01:25:18 pm
ISF, that's a flimsy campaign line.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 12, 2012, 05:13:03 pm
ISF,  MA unemployment was barely over five when he became governor.  When he left it was under 5.  When most of your citizens are employed there just aren't that many jobs to create.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 09:41:34 am
It will be interesting to see how Romney campaigns against Santorum, given that Rick is probably as squeaky clean (if not more so) than Mitt.  Romney won't get anything by characterizing Santorum as too-conservative on social issues, even though that's his biggest weakness in a general election.

The way he SHOULD campaign against him is simply by pointing out that Santorum is NOT really conservative, and that his voting record illustrates that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 09:42:26 am
Romney's been trying to portray Santorum as some Washington insider who loves earmarks and raising the debt limit, and that tact isn't going to work with him.

That, too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 09:47:00 am
The only chance that I see for Santorum is if he ignores social issues and campaigns only on a "smaller and less intrusive government".

Except that he is for a bigger and MORE intrusive government.  He also favors having the federal government actively enter areas which both the Constitution and tradition have reserved for the states and to have the government picking economic winners and losers.  It is just that he generally supports DIFFERENT government intrusions and decisions than liberals support in those areas, but Santorum is NOT for limited government or constitutional government or a non-intrusive government.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 09:50:49 am
Clinton was firmly anti-abortion in order to get to be governor of Arkansas and as soon as he decided to go for President had an epiphany because he wasn't going to get the nomination as a anti-abortion candidate.

Really?

You seem to be rather mistaken there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 13, 2012, 09:59:51 am
Except that he is for a bigger and MORE intrusive government. 


Speaking of flimsy campaign lines...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 13, 2012, 10:07:10 am
http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/02/13/santorum-leads-in-michigan-sheldon-adelson-pulls-the-plug-on-newt/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 13, 2012, 10:23:34 am
If Santorum wins Michigan, that's probably going to be a big game changer.  That probably gets Newt out of the way, and it's going to be a big embarrassment for Romney. 

I'm also guessing if Santorum wins Michigan and knocks Newt out, that's probably when Sarah Palin will be coming out for Santorum.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290932/palin-gop-voters-not-convinced-romney-conservative-katrina-trinko
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 13, 2012, 10:29:15 am
There isn't a single conservative left in the field.  Now it's just an argument about who is the least liberal on the most important issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 13, 2012, 10:37:09 am
Rush Limbaugh seems to think Santorum is a true conservative . . . or at least his type of conservative anyway.

https://www.ricksantorum.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=61&gclid=CPXUp42xm64CFVCR7QoddyolIg

At least if Santorum wins the nomination, Limbaugh won't have any excuses about the Republican nominee not being conservative enough.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 13, 2012, 10:45:15 am
Seems like the Republican Party is having a serious identity crisis.  Maybe an airing of the various perspectives will end up being healthy for the country.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 10:48:08 am

Speaking of flimsy campaign lines...

He was and is a big supporter of the Patriot Act, of expanding federal government searches and surveilance of of US citizens, of having the federal government "define marriage," of having the federal government encourage or discourage private conduct which the federal government considers "good" behavior (some call that social engineering), of the unfunded prescription drug plan, of the federal government taking a pre-emptive role in the regulation of pet breeding, of using federal tax policy and other federal powers to pick economic winners and losers.... and those are the ones I than think of without spending more than 5 seconds at it.

The guy supports a bigger, more expansive and more intrusive federal government.  He just wants it directing private decisions the way HE wants them to be made.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 10:50:00 am
There isn't a single conservative left in the field.

Depends on how you define conservative.

Paul is the most conservative candidate to have run.... unless, of course, your idea of conservative includes being the world's policeman and engaging in pre-emptive wars.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on February 13, 2012, 10:55:16 am
I think it's going to be pretty entertaining to watch the reactions of guys like Rush and Hannity if Santorum gets the nomination.  They're slowly going to realize what everyone outside the social conservative wing of the Republican party already knows--Santorum can't come close to carrying the independent vote.  Independents just don't have enough hate for Obama to vote for a guy who is stuck in the 1950s on social issues. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 10:55:33 am
I don't think the government should be creating winners and losers.  Why is manufacturing more important than tech or services or finance?  Why do they merit special treatment.  You either believe in the free market or you don't.

BINGO!!

Santorum simply does not support the free market.

Unfortunately, for that matter, neither does Romney, who has several times said he wants the federal regulatory process to HELP US businesses, and not to hurt them.

Regulations certainly are excessive and need to be reduced, but the regulatory process ought not be determined by (or even influenced by) what will help business.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 13, 2012, 10:59:14 am
Depends on how you define conservative.

Paul is the most conservative candidate to have run.... unless, of course, your idea of conservative includes being the world's policeman and engaging in pre-emptive wars.

My idea of a conservative certainly includes protecting America from it's foreign enemies, by pre-emptive wars if necessary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 10:59:18 am
The Republicans ought to nominate a candidate who has the courage of his convictions.

That leaves Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 13, 2012, 11:22:26 am
Except when it comes to racist newsletters...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 13, 2012, 11:26:23 am
br, Santorum won a blue state 4 times before the Democrats wised up and spent 37 million dollars running the son of a popular former Governor against him.

By the way, Bob Casey ran as a pro-life, conservative Democrat that year.

In case you didn't know, America is still a center-right country and a majority believe in the same social values Santorum speaks to.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 13, 2012, 11:42:27 am
I think it's going to be pretty entertaining to watch the reactions of guys like Rush and Hannity if Santorum gets the nomination.  They're slowly going to realize what everyone outside the social conservative wing of the Republican party already knows--Santorum can't come close to carrying the independent vote.  Independents just don't have enough hate for Obama to vote for a guy who is stuck in the 1950s on social issues. 



I agree, it's will be ugly if  Santorum is the candidate.  He'll lose as badly as is possible for one to lose in this day and age.  It won't be like Mondale 1984 since I think there are too many guaranteed Republican states for that to happen again but will be bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 11:45:58 am
I agree, it's will be ugly if  Santorum is the candidate.  He'll lose as badly as is possible for one to lose in this day and age.  It won't be like Mondale 1984 since I think there are too many guaranteed Republican states for that to happen again but will be bad.

I still think that any of the Republicans will beat Obama.

I am not afraid Santorum will get the nomination and lose.

I am afraid of him getting the nomination and winning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 13, 2012, 11:49:13 am
ISF, is there a new poll showing a "pro-life" majority?  Here are results of a Gallup poll from last year:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 12:03:12 pm
Play, the polls on whether someone supports or opposes abortion are not particularly meaningful in indicating how they will vote (though I believe the trend has clearly been moving toward greater opposition to abortion, and that the opponents are now in a majority, and even in the poll you link to that is the first poll result with a majority supporting abortion after three straight with a majority opposing).

The real question is the intensity of support or opposition.  Fewer supporters are in favor of abortion as strongly as those who oppose it.  For someone like me, who considers abortion murder, there is simply no way I could vote for a candidate who supported abortion, and since most of those who oppose abortion hold that position because they consider it murder, nearly all of those folks are going to vote against anyone supporting it.  For those supporting it, that kind of intensity is only present for a relatively small portion of supporters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 13, 2012, 12:07:57 pm
I didn't claim a pro-life majority. I claimed that a majority of people believe in the values Santorum speaks to. That includes believeing abortion is immoral.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/55_say_abortion_morally_wrong_most_of_the_time

A similar ABC News poll found that 57% of people believe that abortion performed simply to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is morally wrong.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2012, 12:13:47 pm
A similar ABC News poll found that 57% of people believe that abortion performed simply to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is morally wrong.

Lot's of folks simply are not capable of thinking very clearly.

If it is "morally wrong," my guess is that most of them would also argue that it is "morally wrong" because it amounts to killing an unborn child.  And if it is killing an unborn child, it is just hard to grasp how it can become acceptable in any circumstance other than saving the life of the mother (i.e. self defense).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 13, 2012, 02:04:42 pm
I still think that any of the Republicans will beat Obama.

I am not afraid Santorum will get the nomination and lose.

I am afraid of him getting the nomination and winning.

The same fear I have for Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 13, 2012, 04:34:49 pm
Wrong, Pro-Choice is the favorite position and this made up battle of contraceptives will only push more indenpentants to that position.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 13, 2012, 06:01:58 pm
Seems like the Republican Party is having a serious identity crisis.  Maybe an airing of the various perspectives will end up being healthy for the country.

If laughter is good for the soul then it's certainly healthy for the country.   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 13, 2012, 06:10:17 pm
Welcome home.

Where's BEERFAN?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: octagon on February 13, 2012, 07:33:52 pm
Forget contraception and who pays; forget gay marriage; these are only the smokescreens with which politicians want you to busy yourselves before election day this year, so you don't pull back and look at the big picture.

THE questions every thinking American have to ask themselves are,

1. am I better off economically than I was 4 years ago?!?

2. Have these illegal and immoral wars, which have cost this country so deeply in blood and money, actually brought more security to the people of the United States?

3. What alleged "positive" outcome has come from the war in Iraq, save for displacing the Sunni Baathists with Shiites, which are sympathetic to the Iranian government, and the breakdown of Iraq into a state of near-sectarian civil war?!?

4. Who in the Federal Government can possibly give you a metric by which the US has "won" in Afghanistan, when it appears that the only entities "winning" are the drug lords, the banks which launder their money, and the huge defense corporations, making money hand over fist by supplying mercenaries, logistics, and supplies?!?

These are the questions which every thinking American needs to ask themselves before they go to the polls next November. It is obvious that the candidate so many of We the People want as the next President, Ron Paul, is being cheated out of any realistic chance to run, so we have the "manufactured" candidates from which to chose.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 13, 2012, 09:24:34 pm
Paul is running and losing. How is he being cheated?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 14, 2012, 07:30:17 pm
Santorum, Mr. Electability?

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-14/santorum-pitch-undermined-by-senate-loss.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 14, 2012, 08:03:32 pm
Though even Santorum would likely beat Obama, Obama would have the best chance against him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 14, 2012, 09:07:05 pm
Nobody is beating Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 14, 2012, 09:59:18 pm
True enough.

He is beating himself.

Anyone getting the Republican nomination will pretty much win by default.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 14, 2012, 10:02:26 pm
LOL!  Whatever Jes says, put LOTS of money on the opposite.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 16, 2012, 03:14:50 pm
jes beard running like a lemming...hey! that looks like a cliff....keep going the line must not be broke....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 16, 2012, 04:21:59 pm
otto, you are aware, aren't you, that lemmings, in fact, do not commit mass suicide by heading over cliffs?

Or are you?

Not that I would really be surprised that you would get your view of the world from Disney comics... 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 16, 2012, 05:02:40 pm

Not that I would really be surprised that you would get your view of the world from Disney comics... 

That is the main textbook at University of Wisconsin PS 137.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 16, 2012, 05:13:35 pm
otto, you are aware, aren't you, that lemmings, in fact, do not commit mass suicide by heading over cliffs?


You can't confuse Oddo with facts.  He makes up his own.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 16, 2012, 05:51:52 pm
You can't confuse Oddo with facts.  He makes up his own.

I have found that common among a great many liberals.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 16, 2012, 07:10:47 pm
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 17, 2012, 09:29:18 am
In case you didn't know, America is still a center-right country and a majority believe in the same social values Santorum speaks to.

Iowa, I think that's just becoming less and less the case.  Most people today don't have a problem with birth control, even religious people.  People are becoming more and more accepting of gay rights and becoming more accepting of people who are gay, and I think that's becoming true even among younger Republicans.  Even among pro-life people, I imagine a majority probably think there should be exceptions for **** and incest, which Santorum is against.  And just quite frankly, people just plain want to have sex with whoever they want, even if they're not in a marriage or even if it's with someone of the same sex, without their president looking down on them for doing that. 

Granted I remember one conversation I had with my uncle in '08 where I mentioned I was worried about how the age gap between McCain and Obama and how McCain could possibly win when he wouldn't be nearly as appealing to younger people as Obama, and he reminded me there were still plenty of old farts like him out there who go vote.  Of course, there weren't enough old farts who voted in '08 to make things up for McCain, but there are still plenty of people who will go vote with views similar to Santorum's who nod anytime he talks about the dangers of contraception and how it gives people a license to do whatever they want.

But that number is starting to dwindle.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 17, 2012, 10:39:48 am
Iowa, I think that's just becoming less and less the case.  Most people today don't have a problem with birth control, even religious people.  People are becoming more and more accepting of gay rights and becoming more accepting of people who are gay, and I think that's becoming true even among younger Republicans.  Even among pro-life people, I imagine a majority probably think there should be exceptions for **** and incest, which Santorum is against.  And just quite frankly, people just plain want to have sex with whoever they want, even if they're not in a marriage or even if it's with someone of the same sex, without their president looking down on them for doing that. 

Granted I remember one conversation I had with my uncle in '08 where I mentioned I was worried about how the age gap between McCain and Obama and how McCain could possibly win when he wouldn't be nearly as appealing to younger people as Obama, and he reminded me there were still plenty of old farts like him out there who go vote.  Of course, there weren't enough old farts who voted in '08 to make things up for McCain, but there are still plenty of people who will go vote with views similar to Santorum's who nod anytime he talks about the dangers of contraception and how it gives people a license to do whatever they want.

But that number is starting to dwindle.

There ia absolutely nothing wrong with Santorum or any candidate for that matter holding views that may not be in line with the majority. The problem is if that candidate tries to impose those views  on everyone else. I am not aware of Santorum attempting to have birth control made illegal...but that makes for a nice soundbite for his opposition.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 17, 2012, 10:44:46 am
The country has been moving towards the center on most social issues, but it remains center-right on most economic issues.  If the winner of the Republican nomination has any sense whatsoever, he will never talk about social issues during the campaign, but will concentrate on the economy, debt, and government spending.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 17, 2012, 10:46:12 am
There's a difference between saying that most people are ok with using contraception and saying that a religion-affiliated entity must supply it freely despite it being directly against doctrine.

The point of the issue has been lost; If you have a job that carries health benefits, you can probably afford a box of trojans. No health insurance company should be forced to pay for that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 17, 2012, 10:51:16 am
http://mediamatters.org/research/201110260024

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 17, 2012, 11:15:35 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 17, 2012, 11:22:10 am
On social issues, both the left and the right have been moving towards the center.  For the first time in decades, more than half of the country believe that a woman's right to abort her child should have some limitations.  At the same time, those on the right have become more tolerant towards homosexual marriage and adoption.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on February 17, 2012, 11:31:08 am
The reality is that it's not a right, center-right, left, or center-left country.  The vast majority of people don't fit a pure right or left description.  Even if they identify themselves as strictly conservative or strictly liberal, most people are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and don't really care or aren't informed enough to make a decision the rest.  Most people want their politicians to have non-extreme positions on everything, and want them to be willing to discuss and compromise.  It's impossible to describe the country as having any single political orientation, because there is just no single description that fits. 

Santorum has made it clear throughout his career that he is far, far right on social issues.  The majority of people don't agree with him.  They may be slightly closer to him than they are to the equivalent politician on the left side...but most people can find four other major candidates still in this race (including Obama) who are closer to them on social issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 17, 2012, 11:31:56 am
The country has been moving towards the center on most social issues, but it remains center-right on most economic issues.  If the winner of the Republican nomination has any sense whatsoever, he will never talk about social issues during the campaign, but will concentrate on the economy, debt, and government spending.

I think that's more of a concern for me about Santorum than imposing his personal views would be, although I do have some concern about that too.

Granted he may have said that he wouldn't ban contraceptives as a matter of public policy, but any time he spends talking about things like the dangers of contraception on the campaign trail and promoting his personal views on the subject is going to turn off the 75-85% of people who disagree with his personal views on matters like that, lead to the impression with a lot of those voters that he may in fact impose his personal views on them if he gets elected, and draw attention away from the most important issues we're facing like the economy and spending. 

BTW, I agree that religious organizations shouldn't be required to pay for services they find morally wrong.  Still, Santorum has also been spending a lot more time than I'm comfortable with expounding on his own moral objections to contraception, and that's not going to create a good impression with people who aren't as socially conservative as he is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 17, 2012, 12:02:06 pm
Quote
If the winner of the Republican nomination has any sense whatsoever, he will never talk about social issues during the campaign, but will concentrate on the economy, debt, and government spending.

Yeah, good luck with that.  Like JR and br are saying, social issues are what sets Santorum apart from most of the country, so the democrats will use every opportunity to point that out (no one in the Republican primary has been doing that, which is why Santorum has some popularity), and it's why Santorum will get steamrolled if he's the nominee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 17, 2012, 12:03:55 pm
If the Gallup poll is to believed all it's saying is that the majority of the people polled identify themselves as conservative. Great! I suppose a differently worded poll from Gallup (or anybody else) might yield different results. But it doesn't matter. My issue is with the statement, "America is still a center-right country". It's meaningless political propaganda. 

It's a matter of math.  How can the center be right of itself? The center is the center. To say that most of America is right of itself is nonsensical. (In other words, political blubbering...)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 17, 2012, 12:11:10 pm
So, it's semantics then?

Fine. America is a right-of-center country. At least according to Gallup...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 17, 2012, 12:16:54 pm
I think that's more of a concern for me about Santorum than imposing his personal views would be, although I do have some concern about that too.

Granted he may have said that he wouldn't ban contraceptives as a matter of public policy, but any time he spends talking about things like the dangers of contraception on the campaign trail and promoting his personal views on the subject is going to turn off the 75-85% of people who disagree with his personal views on matters like that, lead to the impression with a lot of those voters that he may in fact impose his personal views on them if he gets elected, and draw attention away from the most important issues we're facing like the economy and spending. 

BTW, I agree that religious organizations shouldn't be required to pay for services they find morally wrong.  Still, Santorum has also been spending a lot more time than I'm comfortable with expounding on his own moral objections to contraception, and that's not going to create a good impression with people who aren't as socially conservative as he is.

I'm not sure he has been expounding on his views on contraception by design. The Obamacare/Catholic Church issue was not instigated by him but being a Catholic be pretty much was forced intospeaking on it. As the controversy dies down I doubt that he will be making that a cornerstone of his campaign.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 17, 2012, 12:20:00 pm
(no one in the Republican primary has been doing that, which is why Santorum has some popularity), and it's why Santorum will get steamrolled if he's the nominee.

Actually, since you're not a Republican, I can tell you it is just the opposite.
Romney hasn't been able to secure the nomination, despite his wealth and name id, because Republicans don't believe HE will govern as a conservative on social issues. Santorum is having success precisely because he is seen as the CONSERVATIVE alternative to Mitt.

Were Romney to attack Santorum on social issues, he'd have to do so from the left, confirming that he is not a conservative, and he would get destroyed in most of the states not named California.

Santorum energizes the base of the GOP. Romney energizes no one.

Santorum can compete for union votes. Romney cannot.

For all of the bluster coming from the left about Santorum...no one appears to want to explain why it took 37 million dollars and the pro-life son of Pennsylvania's most popular governor in a democratic wave election to finally beat him.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2012, 12:27:52 pm
http://mediamatters.org/research/201110260024

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

And if you want an impartial view of what is or is not fact, there is no better source than the folks at mediamatters.org.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 17, 2012, 12:29:13 pm
Fine. America is a right-of-center country. At least according to Gallup...

No, according to a Gallup poll most Americans consider themselves to be conservatives. IF...if the poll is to be believed then that means the CENTER is conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2012, 12:30:22 pm
Most people want their politicians to have non-extreme positions on everything, and want them to be willing to discuss and compromise.  It's impossible to describe the country as having any single political orientation, because there is just no single description that fits. 

What we say (or write) seldom does much to accurately define the real world, but it often does a great deal to define us, or how we want things to be.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 17, 2012, 12:30:59 pm
So if 75% of my gas tank is full, and 25% is empty, the center is full?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 17, 2012, 12:31:04 pm
And if you want an impartial view of what is or is not fact, there is no better source than the folks at mediamatters.org.

I actually don't believe that.  I think mediamatters.org is about as reliable as Fox News or MSNBC...or a a single Gallup poll, for that matter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 17, 2012, 12:33:31 pm
So if 75% of my gas tank is full, and 25% is empty, the center is full?

I'm not sure a tank has a center...but if it does you probably have to use geometry, not opinion,  to find it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2012, 12:35:31 pm
draw attention away from the most important issues we're facing like the economy and spending.

Many see the economy and spending as the most important issues, and those issues likely will decide more votes than any other, but the economy and spending to a large degree have lives of their own, and the market will impose some controls or limits even when politicians would not.

A far greater issue, which does dovetail with both of those, but which is also independent of them and often quite divergent, is the issue of the proper role and scope of government.

And that is an area where Santorum does not greatly differ from Obama, but with a Republican Congress would be far more likely to do irreparable harm than Obama, irreparable because once liberties are surrendered and government has expanded, we seldom see either reversed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2012, 12:40:30 pm
It's a matter of math.  How can the center be right of itself? The center is the center. To say that most of America is right of itself is nonsensical. (In other words, political blubbering...)

Median, mode, midpoint, norm, average, and standard deviations are all at issue here, as well as the definition of what should be considered the extremes for purposes of mainstream political discussion.  To me there is no conflict in referring to the nation as "center-right" or "center-left."  There also is no conflict in referring to 1960's Cuba under Castro as "far left" or of Germany under Hitler as "far right."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 17, 2012, 12:43:02 pm
Considering the country's true unemployment is around 15% and we are coming up on 16 trillion in debt I find it odd that we are spending time talking about contraceptives of all things.  The President is going to keep deflecting the discussion to anything but his record and the media is going to run point in helping him do so.  Romney isn't talking about social issues because that is a failed strategy for beating Obama.  Santorum just couldn't help himself as he wouldn't in the general.  Sorry but Santorum might be able to appeal the far right but he will never sniff the White House unless Obama invites him over for dinner.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 17, 2012, 01:54:39 pm
Quote
Actually, since you're not a Republican, I can tell you it is just the opposite.
Romney hasn't been able to secure the nomination, despite his wealth and name id, because Republicans don't believe HE will govern as a conservative on social issues. Santorum is having success precisely because he is seen as the CONSERVATIVE alternative to Mitt.

Were Romney to attack Santorum on social issues, he'd have to do so from the left, confirming that he is not a conservative, and he would get destroyed in most of the states not named California.

Santorum energizes the base of the GOP. Romney energizes no one.

Santorum can compete for union votes. Romney cannot.

For all of the bluster coming from the left about Santorum...no one appears to want to explain why it took 37 million dollars and the pro-life son of Pennsylvania's most popular governor in a democratic wave election to finally beat him.

I agree with most of what you said, but it doesn't change my assertion.  Santorum is competing against Republicans right now among Republican voters.  The general election would be an entirely different circumstance, and I believe Santorum would lose convincingly.  Too many of the independent voters who will determine the election outcome (one of which is me, by the way--I register independent because I despise both political parties) will get a closer look at Santorum's social views and see him as being too close to a zealot.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 17, 2012, 02:21:50 pm
zealot...hmmm, interesting word. Exactly what constitutes a zealot?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on February 17, 2012, 03:28:22 pm
Checks and balances...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 17, 2012, 05:00:11 pm
Obama is a tax-the-rich, big-government zealot.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2012, 05:24:03 pm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zealot
zeal·ot  (zlt)
n.
1.
a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.


And is anyone suggesting that does NOT describe Santorum?

My problem is that he is a zealot on social issues, and a hypocrite on the issues of spending, limited government and constitutional government, and has no regard at all for civil liberties and openly admits that he wants the government to influence economic choices and outcomes.

So other than disagreeing with him on pretty much everything, believing he will chase hispanic voters to the Democratic party, and also believing he is simply disgustingly smarmy, he's just about the kind of guy I would like to see get the nomination and win the election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 17, 2012, 06:30:23 pm
Santorum is a religious person.  I have not seen anything to make me believe that he is especially excessively so.  He seems to believe what a great many Catholics believe, no more and no less.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 17, 2012, 07:39:08 pm
JR, the issue is being misrepresented in the media...very successfully.  It is not birth control.  You are absolutely correct that a vast majority of people accept birth control.  What's on the table right now is not birth control.  It is abortion by pill and forcing those who oppose abortion...not birth control...abortion, to pay for it.  Read more carefully and you'll see I'm right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2012, 07:45:06 pm
Read more carefully and you'll see I'm right.

Odds are that such things will happen eventually.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 17, 2012, 08:41:13 pm
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

 -Rick Santorum, opposing contraception and frighteningly suggesting that he would love to make pre-marital sex illegal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2012, 10:54:06 pm
You know, if someone like otto is "frightened" by Santorum, perhaps Santorum wouldn't be so bad after all.....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 18, 2012, 08:46:52 am
and frighteningly suggesting that he would love to make pre-marital sex illegal.

I guess I missed that part. Could you underline the part where he says that? Or maybe you just conveniently inferred it as part of the usual fear mongering...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 18, 2012, 09:01:11 am
If people believed that Obama could actually do everything he said he personally thought was right, he would never have been elected.  Santorum has stated how he thinks things should be while, I'm sure, knowing that will never happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on February 18, 2012, 09:40:53 am
Exactly...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 18, 2012, 10:28:46 am
I am not a Rick Santorum fan but he never said he would make pre-marital sex illegal.  Believing it is wrong and wanting to make it illegal is a wide gulf.  Of course a liberal who believes the government should step in to cure all societal ills would probably be unable to comprehend such logic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2012, 10:55:48 am
It should certainly have been illegal for my three daughters.

Or at least their boy friends.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 18, 2012, 11:22:53 am
I guess I missed that part. Could you underline the part where he says that? Or maybe you just conveniently inferred it as part of the usual fear mongering...

He did say "suggested," and I agree that Santorum has suggested that.  In fact, he appears to have done so in the very quote otto offered: It’s [he is speaking about contraception] a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2012, 12:55:17 pm
He was talking about a moral imperative, not a legal imperative.

There is a great difference.  There are a great many of us that believe that adultery is morally repugnant.  Very few of us feel that it should be illegal. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2012, 03:27:50 pm
I don't know if it a stroke of political genius or just a fantastic stroke of luck, but the decision by the Obama Administration to require Catholic institutions to give their employees contraception services (even if the institution doesn't pay for them) is a tremendous political advantage.

First, it creates an issue that is non-economic in nature that to some extent gets the economy off the front pages (and opening newscast stories) that are so devastating to Obama.  Second, it puts the conservatives in a situation where they have to justify a position that the vast majority of the country, (and if polls are to be believed, the majority of Catholics), do not understand or accept.  And third, it brings into the forefront social issues that are likely to split the conservative movement, as they have in the past.  In the 2010 landslide, so called social conservative issues were essentially non-existent.  One hope for the Obama administration is that Social Conservatives will be less likely to vote if Romney wins the nomination, and Economic Conservatives will be less likely to vote if Santorum is nominated.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 18, 2012, 04:16:18 pm
a lot of conservatives sat out the last election out of disgust with the nominee and got rewarded with Obama. I doubt they make that mistake again no matter how much they dislike the republican candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 18, 2012, 04:24:31 pm
Contraception services are not the issue for everyone.  I understand that Catholic institutions are opposed to contraception, but they are being joined by many other denominations opposed to the morning after type pills, which is basically abortion.  The true issue is being masked.  It's kind of a gateway drug to abortion as a whole.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 18, 2012, 04:52:03 pm
He was talking about a moral imperative, not a legal imperative.

There is a great difference.  There are a great many of us that believe that adultery is morally repugnant.  Very few of us feel that it should be illegal.

And otto said "SUGGESTING THAT HE WOULD LOVE TO MAKE PRE-MARITAL SEX ILLEGAL."

Santorum has essentially done that.  Would he actually make it illegal?

If he thought he had the votes, I suspect that he would.

That is my concern about Santorum, not that he would make pre-marital sex illegal, but that he would eagerly pursue rightwing social engineering in as many areas as he could, and that a Republican Congress would go along with most of it, even when as misguided as No Child Left Behind, and the prescription drug plan.

I would MUCH prefer Obama and a Republican Congress than Santorum and a Republican Congress.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2012, 06:03:50 pm
Contraception services are not the issue for everyone.  I understand that Catholic institutions are opposed to contraception, but they are being joined by many other denominations opposed to the morning after type pills, which is basically abortion.  The true issue is being masked.  It's kind of a gateway drug to abortion as a whole.

Curt - you are absolutely correct.  But that is not the way it is being portrayed in the press.  If you listen to MSNBC, CNN and to a certain extent even FoxNews, the talk is all about contraception, rather than the abortion pills.  And a great many voters go no further than the bullet=point headlines.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 18, 2012, 06:27:12 pm
Contraception services are not the issue for everyone.  I understand that Catholic institutions are opposed to contraception, but they are being joined by many other denominations opposed to the morning after type pills, which is basically abortion.  The true issue is being masked.  It's kind of a gateway drug to abortion as a whole.

The "morning after pill" does not cause an abortion. It changes the hormonal balance and makes fertilization less likely to happen. It doesn't work if the egg is already fertilized.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2012, 06:53:52 pm
The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three modes of action (as does the regular birth control pill); that is, it can work in one of three ways:
 1.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
 2.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
 3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.
 
Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.

Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 18, 2012, 07:25:57 pm
The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three modes of action (as does the regular birth control pill); that is, it can work in one of three ways:
 1.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
 2.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
 3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.
 
Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.

Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient.


Believe it or not, this has been studied and the data show that your third point is extremely unlikely to be true. The possibility that it happens has not been completely excluded but there isn't any evidence so far to show that it happens.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2012, 09:13:42 pm
So it IS possible that the pill could cause an abortion?  In an earlier post you said that it didn't do so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 18, 2012, 09:15:16 pm
There are several pills involved; 3, I believe.  Not sure if Cletus' test goes for all of them.  Doubt it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 19, 2012, 07:12:44 am
So it IS possible that the pill could cause an abortion?  In an earlier post you said that it didn't do so.

It hasn't been ruled out but all data from all the studies show no evidence that this is what happens.  So, right now, there is no reason at all to think that the morning after pill affects a fertilized egg.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 19, 2012, 07:19:44 am
There are several pills involved; 3, I believe.  Not sure if Cletus' test goes for all of them.  Doubt it.

There are three different types of morning after pills but they all act to disrupt fertilization. None of them affect a fertilized egg. The only pill that is known to affect a fertilized or implanted egg is RU-486.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 19, 2012, 08:50:28 am
There are three different types of morning after pills but they all act to disrupt fertilization. None of them affect a fertilized egg. The only pill that is known to affect a fertilized or implanted egg is RU-486.

And isn't that the one that the pro abortion crowd is most concerned about, and wouldn't that one be included under Obama's edict, or has RU-486 not been approved in this country yet?  I am not trying argue or ask a gotcha question, but am genuinely interested in the answer to find out which it is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 19, 2012, 08:52:50 am
RU-486 is not legal in the US.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 19, 2012, 09:20:18 am
The mainstream news media appears to be deliberately distorting things with Santorum to make him appear to be even more of a nut than he is, and here is an example:

"Santorum was forced on his heels in recent days after a top supporter suggested women use aspirin to prevent pregnancy."  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANTORUM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-18-15-55-37

The actual quote was, "You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly."  http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/17/146999566/santorum-backer-friess-praises-old-school-contraceptive-aspirin

The clear meaning of the comment was that abstinence is not only effective as birth control, it is quite inexpensive.  But instead of referring to the comment as one encouraging abstinence, all reporters or interviewers I have heard reference the quote or comment refer to Friess as suggesting that aspirin be used as a contraceptive.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 19, 2012, 10:41:52 am
Santorum will be an easy target for the mainstream media.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 19, 2012, 10:57:22 am
"Will be"?

Don't you need to correct the verb tense there?  No need to use the future tense.  "Is" would seem more appropriate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 19, 2012, 02:27:16 pm
The current attacks are nothing compared with those that come if Santorum gets the nomination.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 20, 2012, 08:27:01 am
Santurom puts the bullseye on himself by offering the return of the conservative culture war on the American society.

Mifepristone was approved for abortion in the U.S. by the FDA, in September 2000. It is legal and available in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico. It is a prescription drug, but it is not available to the public through pharmacies; its distribution is restricted to specially qualified licensed physicians, sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 20, 2012, 01:07:31 pm
You'd have to begin by explaining why Santorum supported sending contraceptives to Africa as part of the fight against AIDS. Seems like that flies in the face of your "he's for making contraceptives illegal" theory.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 20, 2012, 01:42:11 pm
You'd have to begin by explaining why Santorum supported sending contraceptives to Africa as part of the fight against AIDS. Seems like that flies in the face of your "he's for making contraceptives illegal" theory.



He's willing to make an exception if it can reduce the number of black people in the world.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 20, 2012, 01:42:59 pm
You'd have to begin by explaining why Santorum supported sending contraceptives to Africa as part of the fight against AIDS. Seems like that flies in the face of your "he's for making contraceptives illegal" theory. 

Specifically what contraceptives?  Anything other than condoms?  And if so, why "as part of the fight against AIDS"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 20, 2012, 01:50:44 pm
He's willing to make an exception if it can reduce the number of black people in the world.

If that's the case it's a bit difficult to explain why he doesn't support Planned Parenthod considering that it was founded by a racist with the specific purpose of weeding out "undesireables". Her words, not mine.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 20, 2012, 02:31:40 pm
If that's the case it's a bit difficult to explain why he doesn't support Planned Parenthod considering that it was founded by a racist with the specific purpose of weeding out "undesireables". Her words, not mine.

Their mission has  changed. I'm sure he would have been an enthusiastic supporter in 1920.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 20, 2012, 02:43:34 pm
He's willing to make an exception if it can reduce the number of black people in the world.

I'm sure the scientific guru will provide evidence for that theory, seeing as you claim lack thereof is an argument against everything else...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 20, 2012, 02:49:25 pm
Specifically what contraceptives?  Anything other than condoms?  And if so, why "as part of the fight against AIDS"?

Are condoms not contraceptives now? I thought the argument was that Santorum would make them all illegal.
Again, it would appear to be a blatant case of fear-mongering.

More:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/16/chris-matthews-falsely-claims-santorum-said-hed-be-fine-states-outlaw


Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.


Now, let's all put on our tin foil hats and try to examine how that can be code for "I want to take your birth control away"...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 20, 2012, 03:53:38 pm
Here's a big problem with Santorum.  When you spend the weekend throwing red meat to the far right social base that Obama's theology is different from yours and you suggest the savings from prenatal testing in Obama's health care plan comes from the savings from the children that are going to be aborted, you wind up having to spend your whole allotted 12 minutes of Sunday talk show time trying to clarify and defend incendiary red meat comments and to smooth them over for people who aren't on the far social right instead of talking about issues people really care about, like the economy and our deficit problems. 

Right now the main issue people care about is the economy.  They don't want to spend time hearing about the dangers of contraception, how Obama's theology or his version of Christianity is different from yours and how it applies to his public policies, and how Obama wants to save money from the health care system by having more abortions.  You can say what you want about Schieffer and CBS being liberal and picking on a social conservative, but if you're going to be serving up red meat comments to your base like this, people who aren't on the far right socially are going to wonder what the hell you're talking about there and it's totally justifiable to be questioned pretty hard about it. 

The Republicans need to nominate someone who is going to go after Obama on the area where he's weakest, which is the economy, and not someone who is going to be spending much of his public interview time defending and clarifying his personal contraception views and red meat statements on Obama's theology like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvADN3p83tg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvADN3p83tg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 20, 2012, 03:58:50 pm
The top issues we're facing in our country are the economy, deficits, etc., and the guy leading in the Republican polls has lately had to spend his time talking about contraception, Obama's theology, and the ethics of certain prenatal testing.

That's not good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 20, 2012, 05:32:33 pm
I agree.  Santorum should do what Reagan did in similar circumstances.  Just stop talking about social issues until the campaign is over.

The Republicans will win if the election is about economic, big government, debt and spending issues.  They are likely to lose if it is about social issues.

Which is why much of the media is trying to make it about social issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on February 20, 2012, 06:45:30 pm
Santorum has made a career over talking about social issues.  They will not be able to avoid "making it about social issues" if he's the candidate.  No way. 

The Republicans' only chance is to nominate Romney and hope he can turn the conversation to economic issues, where he'd be able to out-talk Obama.  But even then, I'm starting to think that Jeff is right that Obama is going to win no matter what. 

It might just be best for the Republicans if Santorum won the nomination so they could get this "true conservative" nonsense out of their system.  Then in four years, they can nominate someone who independents don't have to hold their nose to vote for.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 20, 2012, 07:07:37 pm
Obama is very likely to win if the economy improves.  And it is improving.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 20, 2012, 07:54:03 pm
Obama is very likely to win if the U.S. economy totally collapses.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 20, 2012, 08:41:45 pm
yes...that huge stimulus package bought a lot of votes. If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can count on the support of Paul.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 20, 2012, 10:26:53 pm
Are condoms not contraceptives now? I thought the argument was that Santorum would make them all illegal.

That certainly is not an argument you saw from me, but I take it from your response that the only contraceptives Santorum supported providing to help with AIDS were condoms.  Thankyou for your very direct answer to my very simple question....  Now, can you explain how and why it is appropriate for the US federal government to forcibly take the earnings of people in this country to give to people in another country, on another continent, even if for a very good purpose?  If it truly was for a wonderful purpose with clear benefit, let him lead a charitable campaign and I will applaud his a**, but he should not take my tax dollars for such a purpose.

Seen from a poster on another site:
For six years just prior to marrying Saint Rick, the current Mrs. Insanitorium lived out of wedlock with a lover who is 40 years older than her (still alive and now 92). That man was an ob-gyn who performed abortions...and he is the doctor who delivered her when she was born.

Just one more of the reasons Santorum will have problems.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 20, 2012, 10:29:12 pm
Obama is very likely to win if the economy improves.  And it is improving.

Not really.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 20, 2012, 10:32:01 pm
I think br and jr are right on the money.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 21, 2012, 07:05:33 am
Others who feel the same as JR and br:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/some-republicans-whisper-about-a-plan-b/?hpt=hp_t2
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 21, 2012, 08:52:25 am
It might just be best for the Republicans if Santorum won the nomination so they could get this "true conservative" nonsense out of their system.  Then in four years, they can nominate someone who independents don't have to hold their nose to vote for.

That thought actually popped in my head yesterday too.  I was planning on voting early for Romney in the next few days, but I am starting to wonder if the healthiest thing for the country and the Republican party is for Santorum to win the nomination.  That way people who are listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh say that the way to beat Obama is to put up a true Limbaugh conservative, regardless of how "electable" he's perceived, can find out once and for all if that theory holds up or not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 21, 2012, 10:55:05 am
Those wanting to have focus back on the economy may well get their wish very shortly -- http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-finds-unemployment-climbing-nine-percent-february
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 21, 2012, 12:22:22 pm
Even though the economy "feels" like it's starting to come around, and people I talk to are starting to feel more confident, I think $4 and $5 gas could put a quick end to that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 21, 2012, 12:27:45 pm
There's always hope that the economy will tank, leading to the election of a Repub president.  For many, that's the important thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 21, 2012, 12:45:03 pm
Then we are in a lot of trouble.  Since we have severely restricted new drilling in the US, ff the economy DOES recover, that in itself will drive up gas prices well over 4 dollars.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 21, 2012, 12:49:08 pm
I'm retired, P2.  I'd rather have a strong economy than a Republican President, but I doubt you were talking to me.  I'm just saying that it is confusing to see headlines proclaiming that things are getting better right next to headlines predicting $5 gas.  Seems to me that it was 4-5 gas that triggered this last collapse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 21, 2012, 12:56:13 pm
I paid $4.13 for 87 the other day.  I don't know why SF Bay Area gas is always so high relative to most areas.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 21, 2012, 01:01:25 pm
Of course, you have good mass transit...you don't HAVE to drive all the time, do you?  I forgot how far from home you have to travel to work.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 21, 2012, 01:02:29 pm
I work all the way across town from downtown.  No practical way to get to work other than drive.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 21, 2012, 01:06:39 pm
Ah, sorry.  Have you looked into one of these fancy hybrids?  Go Leaf.  Go Volt.  Go hydrogen!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 21, 2012, 01:33:53 pm
I considered the Volt, but the cost was a serious disincentive.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 21, 2012, 01:35:10 pm
Tesla.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on February 21, 2012, 01:52:17 pm
Golf cart?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 21, 2012, 02:01:26 pm
A true American, P2, would buy a Volt.  Both Obama and Linbaugh agree.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 21, 2012, 02:09:09 pm
I've owned many cars, but only 2 were lemons.  The only 2 American cars I have purchased.  I currently drive a Sonata, and after six months I'm pleased.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 21, 2012, 02:32:29 pm
Ah, yes, Santorum at his finest.

THIS is the kind of thing which will cause many to back away from Santorum.

http://mrctv.org/audio/santorum-2008-satan-systematically-destroying-america
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 21, 2012, 04:45:30 pm
Santorum is going to blow it by shooting off his mouth.  It won't take the democrats to force him to talk about his social agenda--he *wants* to talk about it, and it will ultimately do him in.  Romney just needs to hold steady and not freak out and do something equally stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/santorum-obama-is-ill-intentioned-power-grabber-who-undermines-churches-promotes-false-fears/2012/02/21/gIQAUQeiRR_story.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 21, 2012, 04:51:51 pm
DFM, I think that's why some Republicans are looking for another candidate.  My fear is that it will be Palin who's just laying low enough...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 21, 2012, 06:54:47 pm
Well, that's what *she's* hoping for, but it won't happen.  A brokered convention would be seriously entertaining, but it won't happen either.  Romney will be the nominee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 21, 2012, 07:45:59 pm
The Republican primaries are merely a series of exercises to see which pud puller is selected to be Mondaled by Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 21, 2012, 09:48:38 pm
Santorum is going to blow it by shooting off his mouth.  It won't take the democrats to force him to talk about his social agenda--he *wants* to talk about it, and it will ultimately do him in.

Agree completely.  Santorum insists that he is not going to get "off message," then launches into a spirited defense of his social agenda issues and things he has said years ago, insisting that he will defend everything he has ever said.... leading to the inescapable conclusion that THAT is his real message.

Case in point --

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/santorum-ill-defend-everything-thing-i-say/

Santorum: 'I believe in good and evil'
Posted by
CNN National Political Correspondent Jim Acosta
Phoenix (CNN) - Rick Santorum offered no apologies Tuesday for a controversial speech he gave in 2008 when he talked about the threat of Satan in America.

“I’m a person of faith. I believe in good and evil,” Santorum said in response to questions from CNN.

CNN LIVE: Tune in Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET for the last presidential debate before Super Tuesday, the CNN/Arizona Republican Party Debate hosted by John King. Follow it on Twitter at #CNNDebate and on Facebook at CNN Politics. For real-time coverage of the Arizona and Michigan primaries, go to CNNPolitics.com or to the CNN apps or CNN mobile web site.

Instead the rising GOP contender defended his four-year-old remarks, made at Ave Maria University in Florida, where he said Satan was “attacking the great institutions of America.”

“If somehow or another because you’re a person of faith and you believe in good and evil is a disqualifier for president, we’re going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president,” Santorum said.

Excerpts of Santorum’s speech were splashed across the conservative leaning Drudge Report for much of Tuesday.

Santorum dismissed the Drudge article as “absurd.”

"If they want to go ahead and dig up old speeches to a religious group they can go right ahead and do so. I'm going to stay on message. I'm going to talk about the things Americans want to talk about," Santorum said to CNN.

When pressed further if he believed Satan was attacking America, as he said in his 2008 speech, Santorum insisted the subject is not on the minds of voters.

“Guys these are questions that are not relevant to what’s being discussed in America today,” Santorum said.

“What we’re talking about in America today is trying to get America growing. That’s what my speeches are about. That’s we’re going to talk about in this campaign,” he added.

With Santorum now leading several national polls and moving within striking distance of two game-changing victories in next week’s Arizona and Michigan primaries, the rising GOP contender has seen his recent speeches subjected to increased scrutiny.

In a speech to a small crowd of supporters in Phoenix Tuesday evening, Santorum said he can handle the pressure.

“I’ll defend everything I say,” Santorum said.

After the speech, Santorum told reporters he’s pleased with the state of his campaign, disclosing that he’s raised more than $6 million this month.

He also commented on the latest Washington parlor game: whether the race for the GOP nomination could result in a contested convention in Tampa later this year.

“I feel very good about our chances of winning this election. Feel really good,” Santorum said.

When asked about the possibility that no Republican candidate will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination, Santorum said such talk is premature.

“Obviously if nobody gets enough delegates we’ll have to deal with that. But it’s a long, long, long way to go and we feel really good about where we are headed right now,” Santorum said.

During his evening speech, the former Pennsylvania senator sounded confident about his chances in next Tuesday’s Arizona primary.

“We’re not just here to debate. We’re here to win Arizona next Tuesday,” Santorum said in reference to Wednesday’s CNN Debate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 22, 2012, 02:53:57 pm
Gas prices rising, home values declining, unemployment going back up...

Yep, Obama is a sure thing.


Jes, aid to foreign countries helps our national security because it fosters good relations with nations that might easily become havens for terrorists.
And it should be noted for the Ron Paul isolationist crowd that without foreign aid, the good ol' USA wouldn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 22, 2012, 03:01:50 pm
LOL  Mondaled.   LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 22, 2012, 03:02:09 pm
We could call it Doled, too, couldn't we?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 22, 2012, 03:04:20 pm
A brokered convention would be seriously entertaining, but it won't happen either.  Romney will be the nominee.

If Romney can't win Michigan, neither of those things will be happening.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 22, 2012, 03:07:17 pm
If Santorum wins the nomination, I can tell you what else won't be happening.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 22, 2012, 03:14:24 pm
<Why did Perry have to be such a babbling idiot?>
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 22, 2012, 03:25:02 pm
If Santorum wins the nomination, I can tell you what else won't be happening.

Yeah, Obama won't be getting a 2nd term.

Look at the electoral map. Obama is hemorrhaging the white working-class vote. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa...Obama can't win these states against Santorum. Santorum went to every nook and cranny of Iowa. Obama is polling behind him and 2 of the 3 others in Iowa according to Des Moines Register poll.

It was Obama who snidely remarked about the bitter clingers. That will play in the general if they try to attack on the social issues.
If they try to make this speech about Satan a big deal, it was Obama who said just earlier this year that "Jesus would want government to raise your taxes" or some such nonsense.

Romney...well, good luck. Romney gives up ObamaCare as an issue. Romney was pro-TARP. Romney's Bain background will not inspire the white working-class vote to his banner.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 22, 2012, 03:42:17 pm
Not saying it's fair/consistent/whatever, but the general electorate has little problem at the mention of Jesus, especially within the context of taxes not being raised. Talking about Satan attacking America, that's a whole 'nother ballgame, and it's a worldview that most don't subscribe to.

Santorum, what with his Satan comments and history of social crusading is so easy to paint as a religious nut that he's going to be mincemeat in the general election. His camp doesn't get that because it's an angle that doesn't play in the Republican nomination process.

This upcoming election is about the moderates and independents. Santorum just doesn't carry those voter blocks against Obama. Not unless we go into COMPLETE economic collapse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 22, 2012, 03:49:11 pm
Then how is he polling ahead in Iowa, when EVERYONE here knows exactly who he and the President are? Iowa is a battleground state.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/potus-people-of-faith-need-not-apply/

It's a false argument that moderates and independents won't vote for Santorum. Santorum carried those blocs for 16 years in PA. It took the pro-life son of the most popular Governor in PA history and a Dem wave election year to oust him. If moderates and independents won't vote for him, how do you explain that?

How do you explain him winning Minnesota, which is probably the most Independent state in the Union (Gov. Jesse Ventura?)

They mad this same argument back in 1980 against Reagan. Too right-wing. Sure defeat for GOP in General against Carter.

Didn't turn out quite that way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 22, 2012, 04:56:13 pm
If Santorum is another Reagan, he can't lose in November.  The Repubs would be nuts to nominate anyone else.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 22, 2012, 05:38:02 pm
I don't agree that Romney gives away Obamacare.  He wants to repeal it, Obama wants to keep it.  Romney's coverage affected 8% of his state.  Obama's affects the entire nation.  These are big differences.  Besides, the SCOTUS will most likely rule the law unconstitutional anyway which means it won't be the big issue Santorum thinks it will be.  Santorum has never run a thing in his life.  We have already tried a lawyer turned senator as President the last three years.  How did that work out?  Romney is not the most animated guy I realize so he doesn't throw red meat to the base like they would like.  He is a reserved man who has deep integrity and a sober bearing that doesn't suit him well with the base but is exactly what we need in a President.  Perhaps he should say that Satan is attacking the US to get the base to like him more. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 22, 2012, 05:39:14 pm
Quote
They mad this same argument back in 1980 against Reagan. Sure defeat for GOP in General.

They also made the same argument against Christine O' Donnell and Sharron Angle, and they turned out to be right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 22, 2012, 05:40:56 pm
I have wondered for some time if ruling Obamacare unConstitutional couldn't be an October surprise.  If late in the campaign that were to happen, it could take a lot of steam of a claim of "accomplishments."  With 26 attorney generals now lined up against it in paperwork filed with the SC, well, it makes you wonder.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 22, 2012, 06:04:07 pm
http://www.conservativestats.com/p/mapping.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: octagon on February 22, 2012, 06:04:24 pm
"Jes, aid to foreign countries helps our national security because it fosters good relations with nations that might easily become havens for terrorists."

I'm trying to think of one instance where this is true.  What country has not become a haven of terrorists due to doling out taxpayer money to  brutal strongman?  This idea definitely didn't work in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.  As authoritarian governments in the ME fall they are being replaced by radical Islam.  Radical Islamists hate the US due to our military presence in their holy land and our support of brutal and repressive dictatorships.
Paying off dictators to force their people to behave is a childish and uncreative way to handle foreign relations.   It only adds fuel to the fire.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2012, 07:28:09 pm
Jes, aid to foreign countries helps our national security because it fosters good relations with nations that might easily become havens for terrorists.

That is the theory, though there is little to no reason to believe it in fact happens.  The reality is that we get targeted by terrorists because they do not like positions we take as a nation which effect them.  It is NOT because they don't like our flag, our freedoms, our economic system, or our constitution.


And it should be noted for the Ron Paul isolationist crowd that without foreign aid, the good ol' USA wouldn't exist.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

There is absolutely nothing about Paul's position which is isolationist.  The guy would increase free trade, thereby increasing trade, which is the exact opposite of isolationism.  Paul IS a non-interventionist, but that is a rather different thing.... but you already knew that.

As to France helping the US in the Revolution, they were not helping us nearly so much as they were simply trying to poke England in the eye.  The French monarchy certainly had no desire to support the notion of colonists overthrowing their own monarch.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 22, 2012, 07:34:37 pm
They also made the same argument against Christine O' Donnell and Sharron Angle, and they turned out to be right.

And they made the same argument against Marco Rubio and Paul Jr., and proved to be wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 22, 2012, 07:36:22 pm
I have wondered for some time if ruling Obamacare unConstitutional couldn't be an October surprise.  If late in the campaign that were to happen, it could take a lot of steam of a claim of "accomplishments."  With 26 attorney generals now lined up against it in paperwork filed with the SC, well, it makes you wonder.

Does the Supreme Court come out with decisions that early in their session?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 22, 2012, 07:44:21 pm
Dave, the Court has already handed down a couple decisions, such as the Hosanna-Tabor case a month ago.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 22, 2012, 08:00:25 pm
And they made the same argument against Marco Rubio and Paul Jr., and proved to be wrong.

I don't think that label applies to Rubio at all.  Marco Rubio is a pretty mainstream conservative who doesn't make outlandish statements, doesn't use a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, has a compelling life story and background, and he was speaker of the state Senate.  Under normal circumstances instead of the circumstances where he challenged an incumbent governor who turned out to be not a Republican at all, a guy with Rubio's background gets viewed as a good general election candidate instead of an extreme tea party aberration.  And if/when Rubio decides to run for President in 2016, everybody right now views him as a very attractive candidate.  He certainly doesn't have an "unelectable" label attached to him right now. 

And Rand Paul won in a red state.  When your state leans politically in one direction, you can get away with running candidates who run more extremely in the direction your electorate tilts.  I really don't doubt Santorum's ability to win in some red states.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on February 22, 2012, 08:06:48 pm
I think that the Nineteenth Amendment will prove to be a serious obstacle to a Santorum victory.

The health care law is being argued next month.  Look for a ruling before the summer recess.  In the unlikely event they hold it over until the fall, I think it very unlikely that they would release it in October.  The last thing the Court wants to do is to look like it is trying to influence the election.  Also, a ruling striking down the law -- which is unlikely, imo -- would just as likely work in Obama's favor by firing up his base.  There are popular aspects of this law (e.g., 26 and under entitled to coverage under parents' policies, the ban on discrimination against pre-existing conditions, the ban on lifetime coverage caps) that, if abrogated, are going to cause lots of real voters pain and anger that will not translate into Republican votes.

All of this imo, of course.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 22, 2012, 08:07:54 pm
Rubio is just about as conservative as anyone in politics.  Certainly as conservative as either ODonnel or Angle.  And when he was running against Crist, all we heard about down here in Florida was that Rubio would lose the state if he were nominated.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2012, 08:24:22 pm
"Jes, aid to foreign countries helps our national security because it fosters good relations with nations that might easily become havens for terrorists."

I'm trying to think of one instance where this is true.

You are counting accurately.


As authoritarian governments in the ME fall they are being replaced by radical Islam.  Radical Islamists hate the US due to our military presence in their holy land and our support of brutal and repressive dictatorships.
Paying off dictators to force their people to behave is a childish and uncreative way to handle foreign relations.   It only adds fuel to the fire.

Another Paul voter in the making....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2012, 08:31:26 pm
Then how is he polling ahead in Iowa, when EVERYONE here knows exactly who he and the President are?

How about because Iowa is about as representative of the rest of the nation as Alaska.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 22, 2012, 08:33:09 pm
Santorum, what with his Satan comments and history of social crusading is so easy to paint as a religious nut that he's going to be mincemeat in the general election.

Frankly, it is hard to see Santorum as not being a nut.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 22, 2012, 09:32:35 pm
Only if you consider a religious belief to be proof of nuthood.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on February 22, 2012, 09:56:19 pm
Keith Law tweeted this picture earlier tonight:

http://instagr.am/p/HVQHVqSwEm/

That was from CNN.  Get used to that kind of thing if he gets the nomination.  It will be one of the all time energized anti-campaigns.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 22, 2012, 11:04:10 pm
Voters who would be swayed by a disgusting sign like that would never vote for the republican no matter who wins the primary anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 07:13:42 am
Only if you consider a religious belief to be proof of nuthood.

I know lots of people who are quite religious who not only do not sound as much like a nutjob as Santorum, but who share the belief that he is a nutjob.... and I personally view him as a nutjob completely independent of any of his religious beliefs.  It is hard for me to see hypocrisy of the level witnessed in Santorum without thinking there is some healthy nuttiness there.

It is hard for me to see as anything other than a nut someone who is truly strongly anti-abortion because he views abortion as taking a human life marrying a woman who up until 6 months before the marriage had been living with her lover... who was a leading abortionist, and then to hold up his wife as also being strongly anti-abortion, while also saying that what her abortionist boyfriend did while she was living with him was his business and did not bother her.  It is hard for me to see as anything other than a nut someone who brings home a stillborn infant and sleep with them in the same bed before disposing of the carcass.  It is hard for me to see as anything other than a nut someone who calls for "free markets and limited, constitutional, small government," while simultaneously supporting No Child Left Behind, federal limits on tort awards (AND applying those federal limits to all STATE court cases), making IN STATE dog breeding a federal crime if it did not meet certain standards, having the federal government pick sectors of the economy for favored treatment, and allowing the president to order assassination without any sort of review.

Santorum's religious views are not even close to what bother me most about the guy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 07:17:53 am
Voters who would be swayed by a disgusting sign like that would never vote for the republican no matter who wins the primary anyway.

The issue is not whether that sign will or will not sway anyone at all, and no one suggested that it would.  The issue is whether Santorum will energize Obama's base to come out to vote, and to vote AGAINST Santorum.  That is a very real prospect, and considering the erosion of support for Obama among his base, and how much of that support is lukewarm to him at best, that is a very serious issue.

Paul, on the other hand, would not only prevent Obama from energizing his base, Paul would steal a significant chunk of it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 09:53:40 am
How about because Iowa is about as representative of the rest of the nation as Alaska.

LMAO.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 09:54:43 am
Speaking of nutjobs, there was Ron Paul again last night pretending he isn't a member of Congress...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 09:58:30 am
Paul, on the other hand, would not only prevent Obama from energizing his base, Paul would steal a significant chunk of it.

That's because Paul isn't a Republican. He's just mucking our primary up because he can't get elected as a Libertarian.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 10:31:22 am
ISF, just what is "a Republican"?

What is the litmus test?

Serious question.

And what is a Democrat?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 10:37:11 am
They are parties. Ron Paul is admittedly a Libertarian, but knows he can't win under that party's banner, so registers and runs as a member of the Republican party.

Perhaps the most ironic part of the debate last night was Ron Paul calling Santorum a fake.

Paul won't run as a member of his own party.

Paul submits millions of dollars in earmarks, then votes against them once assured that they will pass.

Paul published racist newsletters which he is quoted promoting while campaigning at that time but now claims he had nothing to do with.

Paul is the embodiment of fake. At the very least, he could stop pasting on those ridiculous caterpillars...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 10:40:00 am
And Jes, if Iowa is as representative of the US as Alaska, why was your nutjob hero claiming that he could win and beat Obama because the Des Moines Register poll had him doing the best of the 4 against him?

Perhaps he feels differently...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 23, 2012, 10:44:00 am
Paul knows he can't win.  He's probably setting up Rand Paul for a future run.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 10:49:53 am
And Jes, if Iowa is as representative of the US as Alaska, why was your nutjob hero claiming that he could win and beat Obama because the Des Moines Register poll had him doing the best of the 4 against him?

I have never identified Paul as my hero, but you appear to feel a need to belittle him, or me, by calling him my hero.  As to my prior comment about Iowa being as representative of the US as Alaska, you asked a very simple question, and I answered it.  Iowa is not particularly representative of the US as a whole, on much of any level, much the same as Alaska is not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 10:53:05 am
Paul knows he can't win.  He's probably setting up Rand Paul for a future run.

There has never been any indication from Ron Paul that he is trying to "set... up Ron Paul for a future run."  He is unquestionably trying to advance the cause of liberty, and appears to understand that most likely that cause will need other champions to advance it in the future, and that it is entirely possible it will be another election cycle before a libertarian minded candidate again runs on a major party ticket.... but that is not at all the same as trying to set up a future candidacy for his son.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 10:54:45 am
I'm not belittling, I'm just calling him what he is; a Libertarian nutjob.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 10:57:59 am
They are parties. Ron Paul is admittedly a Libertarian, but knows he can't win under that party's banner, so registers and runs as a member of the Republican party.

I see no attempt at offering a definition of what is "a Republican" or "a Democrat" there.

You do say that "they are parties," but that refers to the party, not "A Republican" or "A Democrat."

Would you care to try again?  Or do you simply want to stick with your current response, in which case there would appear, under your definition, to be no difference between the two (something many of us have claimed for year) -- they are both simply parties, political organizations, which presumably exist for no purpose other than helping individuals acquire elective office.  And if that is the case, just how again is it that Paul is NOT "a Republican?"

He is a "libertarian," with a lower case "l," but he is not a "Libertarian" with an upper case "L."

But you knew that.....

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 11:01:28 am
I'm not belittling, I'm just calling him what he is; a Libertarian nutjob.

That does not explain your reference to him as my "hero."  It is an effort at belittling.  As to the "nutjob" part of your post, I have set out in considerable detail why I believe Santorum has earn the description.... just what is it about Paul that you believe earns the "nutjob" description?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 11:05:12 am
I see no attempt at offering a definition of what is "a Republican" or "a Democrat" there.

You do say that "they are parties," but that refers to the party, not "A Republican" or "A Democrat."

Would you care to try again?  Or do you simply want to stick with your current response, in which case there would appear, under your definition, to be no difference between the two (something many of us have claimed for year) -- they are both simply parties, political organizations, which presumably exist for no purpose other than helping individuals acquire elective office.  And if that is the case, just how again is it that Paul is NOT "a Republican?"


Sorry Jes. I thought I remembered you saying you were somehow involved in politics at one time. Clearly I was mistaken.
While I am not going to explain the entire process to you, the fact is that if you want to know what a Democrat or Republican is,
you need only go to the corresponding website and drill down to the desired platform.

In Iowa, that platform changes every 2 years (usually minor tweaks, sometimes bigger changes) through a process we call "caucus".

He is a "libertarian," with a lower case "l," but he is not a "Libertarian" with an upper case "L."

But you knew that.....

There is no difference in the word between the little l and the big L. It is the same creature.

But you knew that....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 11:34:39 am
There is no difference in the word between the little l and the big L. It is the same creature.

But you knew that....


Quite wrong there.  I am a libertarian.  I do not belong to the Libertarian Party.  I do not contribute to the Libertarian Party.  And in the 2008 presidential race I did not vote for the Libertarian Party candidate.

As to the rest of your post, I did not ask you to explain any process to me.

I asked you to offer a definition of what is "a Republican" and what is "a Democrat."

Should I take it by your response that you are not capable of offering such a definition?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 12:29:40 pm

I am a libertarian.  I do not belong to the Libertarian Party.  I do not contribute to the Libertarian Party.  And in the 2008 presidential race I did not vote for the Libertarian Party candidate.


None of which makes me wrong.

As to the rest of your post, I did not ask you to explain any process to me.

I asked you to offer a definition of what is "a Republican" and what is "a Democrat."

And I gave you both. Each party has a platform. Like any other club or organization, part of being a member in good standing is supporting and adhering to the tenets proscribed by it. And the tenets of each party change every 2-4 years.

In the case of the Republican Party, Section 1 of the National GOP Platform addresses Defense and National Security.
Oddly enough, it does not mention free trade in that section.

Should I take it by your response that you are not capable of offering such a definition?

Ignoring my answers doesn't mean I haven't offered them.

Just for the record, Ron Paul ran as the Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 1988.
Have his views changed such that he could no longer align himself with that party?
Or did something else make him change his allegiance?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 01:43:35 pm
None of which makes me wrong.

While it doesn't prove you are wrong, it does illustrate that your logic is so flawed it does not support the conclusion that you reach.  Now flawed logic does not necessarily mean the conclusion reached is wrong, but it does mean there is no reason to give it any weight.


And I gave you both. Each party has a platform. Like any other club or organization, part of being a member in good standing is supporting and adhering to the tenets proscribed by it. And the tenets of each party change every 2-4 years.

In the case of the Republican Party, Section 1 of the National GOP Platform addresses Defense and National Security.
Oddly enough, it does not mention free trade in that section.

Actually, you gave neither.  You referred me somewhere else.  You mention being "a member in good standing."  Is this to suggest that Paul has been removed from the Republican Party?  Or that there is someone or some body which determines whether he is or is not "in good standing"?  The Republican Party has co-sponsored most of the primary debates so far, and it appears they have invited Paul each time, so perhaps he is in better "standing" than you imagine.  As to your reference to "free trade" not being in the national security section of the platform, whether it is or is not, does that mean that having a position which is NOT in the platform removes a person (or candidate) from the party?  And I assume you are aware that another section of the platform does address free trade, AND addresses it.... as a national security issue: Greater international trade, aggressively advanced on a truly level playing field, will mean more American jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living. It is also a matter of national security and an instrument to promote democracy and civil society in developing nations.  http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm  Are you REALLY suggesting that because Paul gives even greater emphasis to free trade, and its importance to national security, than the GOP platform does (though still in agreement with the platform), that he is NOT a Republican?

Again, I ask, quite sincerely, what is "A Republican"?


Just for the record, Ron Paul ran as the Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 1988.
Have his views changed such that he could no longer align himself with that party?
Or did something else make him change his allegiance?

Phil Gramm ran as a Democrat, and was elected as one.  He also ran as a Republican, and was elected as one.  Was Gramm not a Republican?

Reagan registered and voted as a Democrat years before he was elected as a Republican.  Was Reagan not a Republican?

I believe that Romney registered for years as an independent, and has pointed out that in several primaries he registered and voted as a Democrat, though he is running as a Republican.  Is Romney not a Republican?

Again, I ask, quite sincerely, what is "A Republican"?  And what, specifically, are the litmus tests for it?

I have looked at the platform as set out on the http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/ site and I see no section which purports to define or determine who is or is not a Republican.  Am I missing it somewhere?  Is there perhaps a secret pass-code I would not know since I am not a Republican? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 23, 2012, 01:57:43 pm
If nutjobness is the winning criteria then vote for Paul.  He has vastly more experience in that area (and is twice as entertaining).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 23, 2012, 01:58:29 pm
There's always hope that the economy will tank, leading to the election of a Repub president.  For many, that's the important thing.

Gawd, you're a trouble maker.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 23, 2012, 01:58:52 pm
JR and/or BR for President!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 02:27:18 pm
...according to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, only one candidate’s overall combination of tax reforms and spending cuts would actually reduce the total federal debt over the next decade. That candidate is Ron Paul.
CRFB’s estimates indicate that Ron Paul’s policies would REDUCE the debt by about $2.2 trillion by 2021... Under the same scenario, Rick Santorum’s proposed policies would RAISE total federal debt by $4.5 trillion. Newt Gingrich’s plans, taken all together, would RAISE federal debt by about $7 trillion. Romney policies would RAISE the debt by $250 billion.
http://usbudgetwatch.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 23, 2012, 02:40:58 pm
Jes, again, I answered you. Ignoring the answer doesn't mean I haven't. It just means you're too lazy to do your own homework.

On the other hand, you completely avoided mine, so I'll ask again:

Ron Paul ran as the Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 1988.
Have his views changed such that he could no longer align himself with that party?
Or did something else make him change his allegiance?

Reagan left the Democratic party because its tenets changed and no longer aligned with his beliefs. Abortion being a prime issue.

What's Paul's excuse?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2012, 10:04:46 pm
Jes, again, I answered you. Ignoring the answer doesn't mean I haven't. It just means you're too lazy to do your own homework.

If you answered, it certainly would not be too taxing for you to cut and paste that answer in another response, because I genuinely have seen no response.  Perhaps I just missed it, in which case cutting and pasting would not be too much to ask, and then it would be right there in front of me, and you could highlight it, and point out how clear your response was and how it obviously defined what a Republican is, and you could rightly ridicule me for being such a dolt I couldn't see it.

You DID direct me to the GOP website, which does not include any language defining who is or is not a Republican.

As to your question, I am not Ron Paul, have no requirement to answer for or explain him, and don't really see how your questions would reasonably flow from anything I have written, so I don't see any need to respond.  My question of you flowed directly from what you had written.

You claimed Paul is not a Republican.  Implicit in such a claim is some notion as to what is or is not a Republican.  I have asked you what that might be, not in an effort to steer the conversation, or have a gotcha moment, but in an effort to make sense of what you posted.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 24, 2012, 11:37:32 am
So, you can't answer the question, because the answer obviously exposes Paul as a fake.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 24, 2012, 11:51:38 am
A Republican, by definition, is a member of the Republican party. 

Paul is a member of the Republican party. 

Paul is a Republican.

The true question is, is Paul a conservative.

Not all Republicans are conservativs.

Paul is not a conservative.  He is a libertarian.

Some of the beliefs of conservatives overlap with those of libertarians.  Others do not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2012, 11:55:04 am
ISF, to a great degree you server to illustrate the point of the first half of this column.... an the paragraph I have set out in bold might address some of the (rather foolish) questions you asked of me about Paul.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/no-conspiracy-ron-paul-just-dislikes-santorum/2012/02/23/gIQAMbLaXR_blog.html

No conspiracy: Ron Paul just dislikes Santorum
By Jennifer Rubin
When your candidate has a really rotten debate, the temptation is great to create a distraction. However, if the distraction is harebrained and unflattering to your candidate, you wind up making things worse.

That is essentially what happened yesterday when Rick Santorum and his team came out with a conspiracy theory that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Mitt Romney were in cahoots. A source close to the Paul campaign told me last night that the Paul camp sees this as an effort by senior Santorum adviser John Brabender to distract the media from the fact that his candidate was “not ready for primetime.” The Romney camp did not return a request for comment. (Romney staffers no doubt believe in the adage that you should never get in the way when your opponent is doing harm to himself.)

Indeed, on one hand, you can say it was foolish for Santorum to cook up an excuse for his dismal outing. Santorum already has a reputation for being thin-skinned and peevish. This tactic certainly made him seem like a poor sport.

To some extent, however, the gambit worked. When you can get major media figures and longtime GOP operatives tweeting away about non-existent deals (A Cabinet position! A VP slot for Rand Paul!) based on nothing but the accusations of a wounded candidate’s flack, that is no small feat. But, in fact, the explanations for Ron Paul’s very obvious disdain for Santorum, and, to a lesser extent, Newt Gingrich are much simpler than a Roswell-esque theory.

Both campaigns confirm that Paul and Romney are personally friendly, as are their wives. They are both of the same generation, with married kids and grandkids on whom they dote. They’ve both been happily married for decades. (It is widely known that Ron Paul’s wife was friendly with Gingrich’s second wife.)

It is human nature to show greater deference and civility to those whom you like. What the press is missing, however, is the degree to which Gingrich, Santorum and their staffs have acted in ways that the Paul camp would justifiably perceive as dismissive and rude. When I asked Brabender for reaction to the accusation that he was practicing the art of distraction, he e-mailed, “It sounds like something the Romney campaign told the Paul campaign to say.” It is precisely this sort of denigration — that Paul and his staff are unable to think on their own or advance their own interests — that has fueled Paul’s desire to skewer Santorum. The source close to the Paul camp responded, “Once again demonstrates the total lack of respect for Ron Paul, his supporters, and his campaign team held by Santorum and his top advisor. When you build coalitions and treat your fellow Republicans the Santorum-Brabender way you end up losing in the general by double digits in the swing states like Pennsylvania.” You get the picture now?

It has been going on for some time now. Santorum publicly called Paul “disgusting.” Gingrich has been telling others to get out of the race for months. In the debate, an eye-rolling Santorum couldn’t contain his disdain for Paul, who returned the favor with blow after blow to Santorum’s self-image of a “courageous” conservative warrior (wasn’t that self-definition by Santorum an unintentional moment of Newt-like ego?) .

At a staff level, the Romney team, perhaps due to an awareness of the personal relationship between the candidates, has been cordial and professional toward Paul’s people. These things matter.

But stepping away from the personal aspects for a moment, consider things from Paul’s perspective. He’s been a candidate who has openly said he wants to get as many delegates as possible — to win if he can or to influence the party and its platform if he can’t. If he thinks Gingrich and Santorum, like Rick Perry and others before him, are going to flame out, doesn’t he want to be on firm ground with the man who is best positioned to win a multi-state, long campaign?

And consider as well that Paul speaks of himself as the grandfather of the Tea Party. If he’s not going to get the nomination, does he want a Gingrich or a Santorum to crash and burn, taking with them the reputation of the Tea Party? Or would Paul prefer a Romney figure, who will either win (and then take his advice and calls in the White House) or lose and not be seen as confirming the Tea Party’s demise?

There is an additional factor at play. The Tea Party, Paul has repeatedly said, has brought the party closer to him, meaning it has been focused to a greater extent than in the recent past on individual liberty, limited government and sound fiscal policy. Gingrich’s erratic policy positions and personal instability would place that progress at risk. Santorum’s zealous interest in pronouncing on personal morality would shatter that alliance as well. So, from Paul’s vantage point, better to have a stable businessman who is not obsessed with contraception than either of the other two.

If he he can’t win the nomination, Paul’s interests at this point are threefold. He wants: 1) to be influential on issues he cares about (the Fed, fiscal sobriety); 2) to been seen as a responsible figure who brings his followers into the party; and 3) to leave his son Rand in a position to lead his segment of the party. With Romney, those are within his grasp. With the other two, they become increasingly remote.

The most significant factor in this flurry of gossip-masquerading-as-news is that with the advent of Twitter and blogs, speculation and conspiracy-mongering become commonplace and largely swamp actual reporting. Unfortunately, the real story about Romney and Paul, which is far more interesting and significant to the future of the conservative moment, goes underreported.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2012, 11:58:01 am
A Republican, by definition, is a member of the Republican party. 

Paul is a member of the Republican party. 

Paul is a Republican.

The true question is, is Paul a conservative.

Not all Republicans are conservativs.

Paul is not a conservative.  He is a libertarian.

Some of the beliefs of conservatives overlap with those of libertarians.  Others do not.

Sure would be nice for ISF to offer something so simple so we had some idea what HE means when he refers to someone as being or not being a Republican, because it appears pretty clearly that he does not use the term the same way you do.... or I do.... or most people do.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 24, 2012, 02:25:42 pm
Definitions

Democractic - A person who believes in personal freedoms and responsiblities. Believes it is governments responsibility to provide a climate that all of it's citizens have equal opportunities for success.

Republican - Wants government to protect them and their interests only while allowing them to reap the benefits from it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 24, 2012, 02:38:56 pm
wow...that's just laughable. One GLARING error among many other small ones. Democrats do not want citizens to have equal opportunities. They want citizens to have equal outcomes. Big difference.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 24, 2012, 03:21:35 pm
"Equal outcomes"

Explain...because gibberish is just gibberish.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 24, 2012, 03:40:04 pm
gibberish is just gibberish.

I finally agree with you Otto
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 24, 2012, 04:55:48 pm
Oddo certainly knows his gibberish.

An example;

"Democractic - A person who believes in personal freedoms and responsiblities. Believes it is governments responsibility to provide a climate that all of it's citizens have equal opportunities for success. "
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2012, 07:08:17 pm
I think the world would be worse off if there were no republicans or democrats.

As for the difference between Republicans and Democrats?  Petty family squabble between spoiled brats. I think they all should be sent to bed without dinner.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 24, 2012, 08:26:50 pm
Democrat politicians - Human filth and garbage

Republican politicians - The dumbest of the dumb
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 25, 2012, 09:21:39 am
Jes, parties are defined by their platforms. I am sorry you can't understand such a simple concept.

Ron Paul is a fake who ran for President under the Libertarian banner in 1988, and then changed his party allegiance; not because his views do not align with the Libertarian Party, but because he wanted to use the Republican Party to achieve his agenda.

Rick Santorum has stood up and taken responsibility for the things he has said and voted for.
Where he felt he did something wrong, he has said so.

When does Ron Paul grow up and take responsibility for the things he has done?
When does he take responsibility for the outrageously racist comments he published in his newsletters?
When does he take responsibility for being a serial earmarker?
When will he at least take responsibility for saying during an early debate that "Why shouldn't Iran have a nuclear weapon?"

Personally, I'd like to be able to trust my President to admit his mistakes, not some slimeball who runs away from his screw-ups.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 25, 2012, 09:27:55 am
As recently as 2009, Ron Paul finished in the top 8% of all Congressman with his dazzling array of earmark spending:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?fy=FY09&cid=n00005906&cycle=2010

33rd out of the entire House of Reps with 23 earmarks for 80.77 million dollars.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 25, 2012, 02:17:20 pm
"Equal outcomes"

Explain...because gibberish is just gibberish.

Not really hard to understand if you are looking at things with an unbiased perspective. Two identical individuals. One chooses to work hard in school and lands a great job with a good salary. The second one chooses to goof off, do drugs or whatever and he is not able to get a great job. Both had the same opportunity  but ended up with  different outcomes. Does it end there? Of course not. In Otto's democrat world the successful person needs to have assets taxed excessively to give benefits to the unsuccessful one. That is trying to have equal outcomes not equal opportunity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 25, 2012, 02:45:43 pm
Jes, parties are defined by their platforms. I am sorry you can't understand such a simple concept.

Yes.  You are correct.  A PARTY may be identified by its platform.  But that does not necessarily determine who is a member of the party.  And I am sorry you can't understand such a simple concept, or are not honest enough to acknowledge your mis-statement and move on.  From your comment about candidates, that is a quality you profess to admire, even if it is not a quality you can actually find in yourself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 26, 2012, 12:49:13 pm
Both had the same opportunity  but ended up with  different outcomes.

I agree that laziness should not be rewarded.  But the idea that everyone has the same "opportunity", and therefore has the potential of the same outcome, is, in my opinion, not supported by the facts.

I have no interest in socialism, rewarding mediocrity breeds only more mediocrity.

On the other hand, a free society has certain obligations (moral and selfish) to insure that people actually do have equal opportunities.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2012, 06:53:52 pm
On the other hand, a free society has certain obligations (moral and selfish) to insure that people actually do have equal opportunities.

How and why does "a free society ha(ve a moral and selfish) obligation... to insure that people actually do have equal opportunities"?

And beyond the question of whether there does or doesn't exist such an "obligation" is the question of whether it is even remotely possible.

Any effort to insure real and meaningful equality of opportunity, to assure that a blind man had the same chance to lead the majors in hitting, or that someone born into poverty with no role models and a low I.Q. had the same opportunity to head a mega-corporation earning millions of dollars a year, or that someone as butt-ugly as any of us had a chance to marry Kate Upton and have her mother our children.... would not only be extremely expensive, but would require government intrusion in economic and personal decisions at a level never even seriously imagine in this country, as well as involving government coercion at an unprecedented level (particularly coercion of Ms. Upton).  To fully appreciate the foolishness of the idea, you might read the Kurt Vonnegut short story Harrison Bergeron.  http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Truly great read.

Truly dumb idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 26, 2012, 08:01:06 pm
If you think so than I feel more sure than ever that I'm right...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2012, 08:05:31 pm
FDISK, perhaps you are right in reflexively concluding that anything I believe is unquestionably wrong.

After all, I had thought that you were a genuinely intelligent person, even if some of your ideas were rather misguided.

I suppose I might be entirely wrong about that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2012, 09:59:44 pm
dave, you have more than once commented that the media will aggressively go out of its way to make Santorum look like a right wing nutjob, and, while I agree with you, Santorum's current problem is less that the media is trying to make himself appear to be a nutjob than it is that HE seems determined to make himself look like a nutjob.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html 
Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Sunday defended a statement he made last October in which he said that he “almost threw up” when he read John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Houston address on the role of religion in public life.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 26, 2012, 10:44:51 pm
As I said, Santorum will be an easy target for the media on social issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 26, 2012, 11:08:06 pm
FDISK, perhaps you are right in reflexively concluding that anything I believe is unquestionably wrong.

Oh no...not "anything" and certainly not "unquestionably".

Let's put it this way, if this were a casin0 you would be the penny slots. Worse odds in the house.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 26, 2012, 11:11:25 pm
Why does "****" get transformed into asteriks?

casin0 cas1no c@sino
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 26, 2012, 11:13:55 pm
SUCK...suck....SUCK...suck....

(just checking)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2012, 11:18:15 pm
As I said, Santorum will be an easy target for the media on social issues.

I'm not sure I agree.

He seems too intent on shooting himself to leave them much of a target.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2012, 11:48:42 am
This is primarily for dave, since we have discussed currency a bit here (somehow I doubt that the graphics and jpg's will survive my cutting and pasting) -- http://www.mises.ca/posts/articles/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-denarius/

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Denarius
Monday, February 27th, 2012 by Chris Horlacher posted in Banking, Capitalism, Economics, History, Politics.


History repeats itself, so the scholars say.  But according to Mark Twain it just rhymes.  Literary quips and hair-splitting aside, I’ve found that one of the most valuable things anyone can do to advance their knowledge and understanding of the world is the study of history.  Now I’m not talking about the kind of history you get in grade school and university, where all you’re told to do is wrote-memorization of people, dates and events.  To get any value whatsoever out of studying history, you have to be able to discern cause and effect.  What causes civilizations to grow to greatness, and what causes them to collapse?

There are few collapsed civilizations that have been studied in quite the depth as the Roman Empire.  Many theories have been offered, some with more merit than others.  Ludwig von Mises argued that Rome was eroded from within and that economics played a huge part in it.  This is too big of a story for me to cover in a single article, so I will focus on one of the most important aspects; the currency.

 

For hundreds of years, the Romans were on a bimetallic standard, not unlike the currency system of the early United States.  There was a gold coin, the aureus, which was popularized by Julius Caesar.  There was also a silver coin known as the denarius, which was what most Romans used in their day to day transactions.  It was on a solid gold and silver standard that Rome ascended to the height of its development and power.

One of the greatest enemies of mankind is hubris, and the Roman Empire was certainly not immune to this.  The phrase “bread and circuses” refers to the massive welfare spending that occurred in Rome during the height of its power.  With the treasury filled with gold, spendthrift politicians quickly used the money to buy influence, votes and curry favour with neighbouring states.

“The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.  People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” – Cicero, 55 BC

When Julius Caesar first began minting large quantities of the aureus it was 8 grams of pure gold.  By the second century it had declined to 6.5 grams and at the beginning of the fourth century it was replaced by the 4.5 gram solidus.  The purity of the coin itself was never debased, but the ever decreasing weight was a sure sign that government spending had been outpacing revenues for centuries.

All of this however, pales in comparison with the devaluation of the denarius.  The denarius was the backbone of the Roman economy.  Citizens earning their income in gold were a rarity given that a day’s wage for an average labourer at the time is estimated at a single denarius.  Thus it also became the target of severe abuse by the Roman authorities.

 

The denarius began as a 4.5 gram silver coin and had stayed that way for centuries under the Roman Republic.  After Rome became an empire, things began to turn sour for the denarius and, by extension, the Roman economy.  Base metals, such as copper were blended in with the silver and so even though the coin itself weighed the same, the amount of silver in it became less and less with each successive emperor.  Throughout the first century the denarius contained over 90% silver but by the end of the second century the silver content had fallen to less than 70%.  A century later there was less than 5% silver in the coin and by 350 AD it was all but worthless, having an exchange rate of 4,600,000 to a gold solidus (or nearly 9 million to the original aureus).

 

The economic chaos the hyperinflation of the denarius had on Roman society was very real.  The population of Rome reached a peak of about 1 million inhabitants during the first century BC and maintained that level until nearly the end of the second century.  At this point it began to slowly decline throughout the third century and precipitously throughout the fourth.  By the fifth century, only about 50 thousand people remained.

Now compare the collapse in value of the denarius to some modern-day currencies and see if you notice any similarities:









Further reading in to the events that unfolded in Rome (links below) will reveal that as the denarius was debased, Rome became an economic basket case.  Desperate times called for desperate legislation as the fabric of society was slowly torn apart by inflation.  I urge my fellow readers to gain a firm grasp of these events because they will be instructive as to what we can expect for the future.  The destruction of the Denarius is only one example of currency debasement, of which there are hundreds.  Romans that held on to their gold coins fared well in the hyperinflation and if history is any guide, they will serve us well in the coming years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2012, 12:18:30 pm
Well this has to be bogus.... Obama has five more years to fix things.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 (see trends). That’s the president’s lowest rating in over a month....
>
> For the first time since late December 2011, Mitt Romney leads the president in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Romney earns 45% of the vote, while the president attracts support from 43%. Romney holds a nine-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.
>
> For the first time ever, Texas Congressman Ron Paul also leads the president. In that matchup, 43% prefer Paul and 41% Obama. Ten percent (10%) would vote for some other option, a figure that includes 17% of Republicans.
>
> If former Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads by two, 45% to 43%. With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as his opponent, the president enjoys a 10-point lead, 49% to 39%.

The figures on a Paul and Obama matchup may be the most telling because of the percentage indicating they would "vote for some other option."  In reality very few Republicans would do that, since they would conclude that voting for "some other option" would increase the chance of Obama being re-elected, and since the "other option" which generally is most likely to peel off from the Republican camp are libertarian voters, who would NOT peel off from the Paul if Paul were the Republican nominee.

I have long predicted that Obama has a roughly 40% **** base, and this polling tends to support that.  Paul would actually peel away some of that Obama base.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2012, 02:03:59 pm
Jes - that is interesting reading, and I agree with most of it, although it is extremely oversimplified, probably due to space limitations.

But the question is not whether we should or should not have stable currency.  The question I asked you, and you refused to answer, is exactly HOW would you recommend we do that in the United States today?

Government spending should be greatly reduced.  By more than 50% in my opinion.  And if we did that, that would eliminate our drastic problems with our National Debt, and reduce the need for tax levels where they are.  But that would have no effect on the greatest long term economic problem our country faces - the vast difference between our labor rates and that of emerging countries.  There are only two mechanisms that I know of to deal with that problem.  100% barriers to international trade, or inflation of our currency on the international markets.

Returning to the gold standard (which by definition means NOT redefining the price of gold periodically as the Roman Empire did) will only work in the first instance, where international trade is not only banned, but abolished.  As long as foreigners are allowed to redeem dollars for gold at fixed and unchanging prices, gold will flee the country until labor rates are equalized world wide, either by increased rates overseas, decreased rates domestically, or a combination of both.

The "combination of both" is what has been happening over the past few decades.  European labor rates are higher than ours, and Japanese rates are rapidly approaching ours.  Chinese and Indian rates that once were about one twentieth of ours are now closer to one fifth ours, and growing consistently.  Over the long run, this is the only way I know of to sustain the free market system.

Excessive Government spending is a politically caused problem and needs a political solution.  It will not be solved by a faux-economic action of making the gold standard our political policeman.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 27, 2012, 02:20:13 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-23/swing-states-health-care-obama/53260222/1

Swing States poll shows Santorum up 5 on Obama in those 12 states, up 3 nationally.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 27, 2012, 02:44:32 pm
Interesting the huge number who feel the health plan is unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 27, 2012, 02:50:59 pm
One part of the health care plan.  People don't understand everything that's in the plan, most of which they would approve of if they had it explained to them.  The reasonable thing would be to fix the parts that don't work or are unacceptable, but it's better rhetoric to proclaim "I'll repeal it on day one."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 27, 2012, 02:53:16 pm
I know of no better system.

Having said that, the flaws in the American political system are apparent when the best candidates to oppose Barrack Obama are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul.

The same was true when the best the democrats could put up against George W. Bush, a truly awful president, was John Kerry.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 27, 2012, 02:56:14 pm
yup
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 27, 2012, 02:58:23 pm
"These two pudpullers are going to get Mondaled."  Jeff Horn


Still cracks me up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2012, 03:32:02 pm
I know of no better system.

Having said that, the flaws in the American political system are apparent when the best candidates to oppose Barrack Obama are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul.

The same was true when the best the democrats could put up against George W. Bush, a truly awful president, was John Kerry.

If you could choose the Republican candidate, who would it be?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 27, 2012, 03:47:56 pm
Hillary Clinton.  She'd beat the pants off Obama.  :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 27, 2012, 04:31:12 pm
Romney has arrived in Daytona and is inspecting the vehicles...

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120227-romney-santorum-nascar-5a.photoblog600.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 27, 2012, 05:07:17 pm
It's funny to hear the garbage about Romney's qualifications to be President.  You may not like him or his stances on issues but he is easily one of the most qualified men to ever run for the office. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2012, 06:56:20 pm
One part of the health care plan.  People don't understand everything that's in the plan, most of which they would approve of if they had it explained to them.  The reasonable thing would be to fix the parts that don't work or are unacceptable, but it's better rhetoric to proclaim "I'll repeal it on day one."

Most of which people would approve of it they had it explained to them?

Not if they also had the Constitution explained to them, such as the fact that we have a federal government of limited and ENUMERATED powers, and that nowhere in the Constitution is there any grant of power to the federal government to do anything remotely like this.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2012, 06:57:46 pm
Romney is a natural born citizen over 35 years of age.  That qualifies him to be President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2012, 07:25:21 pm
It's funny to hear the garbage about Romney's qualifications to be President.  You may not like him or his stances on issues but he is easily one of the most qualified men to ever run for the office.

A lot depends on how you define "qualified."

He has never been a legislator, so he has never been involved in writing law, nor has he ever been a judge or in a position of interpreting law, nor has he ever practiced law, though he would be more directly responsible for our nation's laws than anyone else and will be responsible for a load of judicial appointments.

He has absolutely no military experience, though he will head the nation's military.

Though he will be the person determining the nation's voice on the international scene, his international background would appear to be 30 months as a missionary in France, and perhaps some vacations.

He has never actually founded or operated a business of his own, and as a venture capitalist, though he was apparently quite successful he was successful for the most part managing the money of other people, making him primarily a skilled bean-counter and not really an entrepreneur who has been responsible for innovating on his own or feeling the pressure of having his own money at risk.

He has led a somewhat insular life leaving him more than a bit out of touch with very wide swathes of the country, not just racial and ethnic and economic but also geographic.

He has lost two of this three bids for elective office and won only once, with no demonstrated ability to win re-election.

He is reasonably coherent (which is something which could not be said for two of our last four presidents), has looks which might have been ordered from central casting, and was bright enough to marry a woman who is attractive without being too attractive and who is articulate without ever being controversial.

And he "saved" the 2002 Olympics.... which I am uncertain has ever been thought of as a qualification for the presidency.

So just what in his uber-impressive resume am I missing?

If you want to talk about the "most qualified" based on paper resume, it really is hard to do better than poppa Bush, former member of Congress, 2 term VP, military service including real heroism, UN ambassador, head of the CIA and a successful business career as an entrepreneur with his own money, chief of the Liason Office to China, head of the RNC... and yet strangely enough, there are actually some people who despite all of those wonderful qualifications don't list him among the nation's greatest presidents.

In other words, the resume doesn't mean a heck of a lot.... but there is no way Romney's resume holds a candle to daddy Bush's.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 27, 2012, 08:25:55 pm
The only Romney that is qualified to be president is George and he died in 1995.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 27, 2012, 08:38:01 pm
Too much garbage to answer Jes and I'm tired.  I would imagine you could discount most every President the same way.  The one I found most laughable was that he never started a business on his own.  The guy has forgotten more about starting businesses than any currently running for office know combined. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2012, 08:52:34 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-23/swing-states-health-care-obama/53260222/1

Swing States poll shows Santorum up 5 on Obama in those 12 states, up 3 nationally.

Newsreports on polls which do not allow a look at the poll itself, including the questions asked, are pretty worthless.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2012, 10:02:25 pm
Returning to the gold standard (which by definition means NOT redefining the price of gold periodically as the Roman Empire did) will only work in the first instance, where international trade is not only banned, but abolished.  As long as foreigners are allowed to redeem dollars for gold at fixed and unchanging prices, gold will flee the country until labor rates are equalized world wide, either by increased rates overseas, decreased rates domestically, or a combination of both....

Excessive Government spending is a politically caused problem and needs a political solution.  It will not be solved by a faux-economic action of making the gold standard our political policeman.

I fail to see the relevance of labor rates in determining the value or price of gold.  For that matter, I fail to see the need to abolish international trading in gold.

The idea of pegging currency to gold is not about having that serve as a "political policeman" (whatever that might be), nor is it a "faux-economic action."  It isn't even really about ending excessive government spending.  It is instead about forcing government to actually pay for its spending through either taxes or borrowing instead of paying for it through inflating the currency.  Now, while it is true that would likely result in sharply reduced spending, the real goal is not to reduce spending, but to prevent paying for spending by inflating the currency.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2012, 10:48:34 pm
Labor rates do not determine the price of gold.  Labor rates determine the cost of imports (compared with the cost of domestic products).  When labor rates are lower overseas, more goods are imported, which must be paid for in local currency, which must be bought with US dollars.  The increased demand for local currency increases the price (exchange rate) of that currency in term of US dollars, causing US dollars to decrease in value in terms of the local currency.

The value of gold, in that local currency, remains the same, but that local currency can now buy more dollars, which can be exchanged in the US into a fixed amount of gold.  Thus, arbitrage causes gold to be purchased by overseas buyers and shipped overseas.  Without reducing the exchange rate of dollars in terms of gold, the US will eventually be out of gold and unable to honor its dollar liabilities.

The currency inflates in terms of foreign currencies regardless of the gold standard, and if the gold standard is not corrected, the US economy must eventually collapse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 08:49:29 am
Labor rates do not determine the price of gold.  Labor rates determine the cost of imports (compared with the cost of domestic products).

No.  The price of anything is determined by supply and demand.  NOT "labor rates."  That includes imports.  The old joke is that if you teach a parrot to say "supply and demand," you have an economist... and that is very close to being right.

Labor costs (not rates) may be a serious component in determining the supply of something, but the cost of anything, including imports, is determined simply by supply and demand.

When labor rates are lower overseas, more goods are imported,

Sometimes, but this is a gross oversimplification.

which must be paid for in local currency, which must be bought with US dollars.

Again an oversimplification.  Importing and exporting is generally not done by nations, but by individuals, or groups of individuals acting in the form of corporations, and they are free to engage in direct trade of goods for goods, or to use local currency or foreign currency, or anything else which satisfies the other side of the trade.

The idea that something "must be paid for in local currency which must be bought with US dollars" is wrong, and it is wrong both places that the word "must" is used.

The increased demand for local currency increases the price (exchange rate) of that currency in term of US dollars, causing US dollars to decrease in value in terms of the local currency.

Ah, for the first time, well into your analysis, you address increased demand, as if only when you get this far into things do those "demand" and "supply" factors come into play, but even then you oversimplify the next step in your analysis by saying it "caus(es) US dollars to decrease in value in terms of the local currency," instead of saying that it MAY cause a decrease or that it creates pressure for a decrease.

The value of gold, in that local currency, remains the same, but that local currency can now buy more dollars, which can be exchanged in the US into a fixed amount of gold.  Thus, arbitrage causes gold to be purchased by overseas buyers and shipped overseas.

Only if the US has been inflating its currency relative to other currencies.  If the return to hard currency (whether gold, silver, or grain), actually chokes of the tendency in the US to pay for government spending by inflating our currency, what you have described will not happen. 

The scenario you have described is one which would have gold fleeing the US for nations with extremely cheap labor, such as Haiti, but that is not what happened in the past, nor is there any reason to think it would happen now.

Gold fled to nations with relatively stable currencies, with much of it going to European nations where labor costs were not a heck of a lot less than in the US.  The cost of labor simply was not a significant factor in the picture.

Without reducing the exchange rate of dollars in terms of gold, the US will eventually be out of gold and unable to honor its dollar liabilities.

If the currency is not being devalued, there will be no reason to reduce the exchange rate, and that devaluation would only happen if Congress continued trying to pay for spending simply by increasing the money supply.

The currency inflates in terms of foreign currencies regardless of the gold standard, and if the gold standard is not corrected, the US economy must eventually collapse.

I finally agree completely with you on one part of one sentence -- currency inflates or deflates (which is what you were describing and which can result in the gold flight which you believe would cause problems to using the gold standard) independent of the what standard if any an nation is using for its currency.  But any collapse which would take place would not be a result of the presence or absence of gold in a nation's coffers (though for a nation on the gold standard it would certainly be an incredibly large contributing factor).  It would be the result of the currency losing value, something which results from either a serious loss of production and productive capacity or a serious increase in the money supply, generally to pay for spending government insists on when it does not have the money to pay for it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 28, 2012, 09:37:41 am
He has never been a legislator, so he has never been involved in writing law, nor has he ever been a judge or in a position of interpreting law, nor has he ever practiced law, though he would be more directly responsible for our nation's laws than anyone else and will be responsible for a load of judicial appointments.

Geeze Louise, that's it!  Romney has never been a blood sucker either. I'm starting to like him more and more. Thanks Jes!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:47:28 am
Too much garbage to answer Jes and I'm tired.  I would imagine you could discount most every President the same way.  The one I found most laughable was that he never started a business on his own.  The guy has forgotten more about starting businesses than any currently running for office know combined.

Robb, you are wrong that I discounted Romney, or other presidents.  I don't think even the Bush family would disagree with my assessment of the elder Bush that "there are actually some people who despite all of those wonderful qualifications don't list him among the nation's greatest presidents," and he is the only president I mentioned.

Nor did I discount Romney.  I accurately described Romney, and, other than Paul, I consider Romney the best of the field, either of those standing or of those who were ever in the field or of those who have been discussed as possibly running this year.

I was responding entirely to your over the top puffery that "he is easily one of the most qualified men to ever run for the office. "  That is nuts.  And it also ignores the fact that resume "qualifications," which appear to be what you are talking about, are no great assurance of a good performance.

You are right that Romney was one of the co-founders of Bain Capital, and that does actually qualify as a business, but forgive me if I am blue collar enough in my roots that an investment management group does not really qualify as a business that produces anything and does not really qualify as an entreprenurial enterprise.

I know that Romney and his folks at Bain provided the funds to some startup businesses, but that is not at all the same as starting them up, operating them or coming up with the ideas themselves.  I believe I was quite accurate in writing that, "He has never actually founded or operated a business of his own, and as a venture capitalist, though he was apparently quite successful he was successful for the most part managing the money of other people, making him primarily a skilled bean-counter and not really an entrepreneur who has been responsible for innovating on his own or feeling the pressure of having his own money at risk."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:57:32 am
Paul isn't a Republican. He's just mucking our primary up because he can't get elected as a Libertarian.

This was ISF's claim in response to the point that Paul would steal a large chunk of Obama's base.

Today we learn that Santroum is openly appealing to Democrats in Michigan to get them to cross over and vote for him in the primary there today.  http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120228/POLITICS01/202280365/1022/rss10

Beyond the richness of the irony, it is amusing that Santorum would so openly encourage Democratic voters to vote for him without ANY appeal to defeat Obama.... meaning many Michigan Dems will be voting for Santorum solely because they view him as the candidate least likely to beat Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 28, 2012, 11:05:07 am
"No.  The price of anything is determined by supply and demand.  NOT "labor rates."  That includes imports.  The old joke is that if you teach a parrot to say "supply and demand," you have an economist... and that is very close to being right."

If you are going to quibble about definitions rather than substance you should at least make sure you kn ow what you are talking about.

Prices are determined by teh intersection of supply and demand, but supply is determined by the amount of the commodity (labor) will be provided at any particular price.  If the cost of labor is lower in Asia than it is in America, then labor will be purchased in Asia.  And that purchase will done in asian currency, which has to be purchased with US dollars, thus increasing the supply of dollars overseas, and deflating US dollars in terms of that currency.  This results in gold being "cheaper" in the United States and those with foreign currency then buy US dollars, purchase gold, and ship it to their country. 

The gold standard can not exist for any length of time in a country with higher labor rates than it's free market competitors.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 11:06:57 am
Wait a minute, so Santorum is now calling on Dems to vote for him in MI? And on the basis that Rimney opposed the auto bailout, which Santorum ALSO opposed? So much for being the higher ground, values candidate, LOL.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 28, 2012, 11:09:01 am
I really think whoever wins Michigan wins the nomination.  Might be ugly, but Santorum is smart for pulling out all the stops there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 11:10:06 am
Newsreports on polls which do not allow a look at the poll itself, including the questions asked, are pretty worthless.

Tell Gallup. Personally, seeing as they are pretty well-respected in the polling business, I'm going to take their word for it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 11:11:28 am
Wait a minute, so Santorum is now calling on Dems to vote for him in MI? And on the basis that Rimney opposed the auto bailout, which Santorum ALSO opposed? So much for being the higher ground, values candidate, LOL.

Santorum voted against all of the bailouts. Romney opposed the auto bailout, then supported his Wall Street buddies getting bailed out. That's the difference.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 28, 2012, 11:14:50 am
"Again an oversimplification.  Importing and exporting is generally not done by nations, but by individuals, or groups of individuals acting in the form of corporations, and they are free to engage in direct trade of goods for goods, or to use local currency or foreign currency, or anything else which satisfies the other side of the trade."

Trade is indeed done by individuals.  I was one of them.  When I bought 30 million dollars worth of Black Pepper from India, I would buy them "cash against documents" where I would pay in dollars when I received the bills of lading.  But I didn't send 30 million dollars.  I sent a international draft worth 30 million dollars.  Mariwala Pepper company would then take that draft to their bank sell it for rupees and deposit the rupees in the bank.  There is now 30 million US dollars more in India than before, and since the supply has increased, the price is forced downwards.

Unless, of course, they can take those dollars and buy gold in the US, and then sell the gold in India for more rupees than they could get by selling the 30 million dollars to someone in India.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 11:16:08 am
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-on-santorum-robocalls-outrageous-and-disgusting--20120228

As Santorum states, Romney didn't have an issue with Democrats voting when it was NH and he was winning. Funny how it is suddenly "outrageous" to look for crossover votes. He should quit whining and explain why this is even close in his home state.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 28, 2012, 11:25:47 am
Here's what happens if Santorum wins Michigan . . .

1.  Gingrich drops out (or he'll become so irrelevant that he ought to drop out).
2.  Palin comes in full force for Santorum and probably endorses him before Super Tuesday.
3.  He'll have a strong Super Tuesday, since those are mostly states that he should do well in.  (Tennessee I know will pretty much be in the bag for him if he beats Romney in Michigan.  I think he's already up by 16 points here.) 
4.  With Palin, all the momentum, and with the south and midwest firmly behind him, he'll probably wind up beating a candidate in Romney that "true" conservatives have had trouble having any enthusiasm for at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 11:34:18 am
Wait a minute, so Santorum is now calling on Dems to vote for him in MI? And on the basis that Rimney opposed the auto bailout, which Santorum ALSO opposed? So much for being the higher ground, values candidate, LOL.

Hypocrisy is nothing knew to Santorum.  He makes a point of how he and his wife are true opponents of abortion and true believers in all of the values and virtues found in the Bible he thumps.... and up until 6 months before they got married his wife was living with her abortionist boyfriend.  The guy is scum.  His Michigan tactics are not at all surprising.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 11:37:50 am
Tell Gallup. Personally, seeing as they are pretty well-respected in the polling business, I'm going to take their word for it.

Gallup did not write the report.  We can't quite take Gallup's word for anything when we don't know what Gallup is saying.  We really have no idea what was in the Gallup poll because the report does not link to it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 11:45:58 am
"Again an oversimplification.  Importing and exporting is generally not done by nations, but by individuals, or groups of individuals acting in the form of corporations, and they are free to engage in direct trade of goods for goods, or to use local currency or foreign currency, or anything else which satisfies the other side of the trade."

Trade is indeed done by individuals.  I was one of them.  When I bought 30 million dollars worth of Black Pepper from India, I would buy them "cash against documents" where I would pay in dollars when I received the bills of lading.  But I didn't send 30 million dollars.  I sent a international draft worth 30 million dollars.

The fact that YOU did it that way, is not quite the same as saying that is the way it is always done.  I believe from your prior posts you were buying for the US military, which quite understandably will be doing so in US dollars.

But GM or other international corporations are not quite so limited.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 11:51:57 am
"No.  The price of anything is determined by supply and demand.  NOT "labor rates."  That includes imports.  The old joke is that if you teach a parrot to say "supply and demand," you have an economist... and that is very close to being right."

If you are going to quibble about definitions rather than substance you should at least make sure you kn ow what you are talking about.

Pointing out a rather serious error in your fundamental contention on how prices are determined is not exactly a "quibble about definitions."

Your contention that the "cost of labor," which is only one component of the ultimate cost of getting something to market and selling it, is also seriously flawed, and yet it is part of the fundamental contention of your argument.

I am not quibbling over definitions, but point out that the premise on which you build your argument is wrong.  As you are aware, that rather often leads to mistaken conclusions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 11:55:44 am
Gallup did not write the report.  We can't quite take Gallup's word for anything when we don't know what Gallup is saying.  We really have no idea what was in the Gallup poll because the report does not link to it.

Gallup did the polling that shows those numbers. Pretending that it doesn't mean/say anything because USA Today hired them and did a story about the results is...well...rather lawyerish, and another example of how the information is easily accessible but you refuse to do the homework so that you can pretend something is wrong.





Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 28, 2012, 11:58:28 am
Hypocrisy is nothing knew to Santorum.  He makes a point of how he and his wife are true opponents of abortion and true believers in all of the values and virtues found in the Bible he thumps.... and up until 6 months before they got married his wife was living with her abortionist boyfriend.  The guy is scum.  His Michigan tactics are not at all surprising.

Have you written telling her she needs to wear a scarlet letter? You can't marry a woman with a past? really?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 11:58:54 am
Hypocrisy is nothing knew to Ron Paul.  He makes a point of how he is a true opponent of earmarks and in 2009 he was the 33rd most prolific earmarker in the House of Representatives.  The guy is scum.  His attempts to hide from his racist newsletters are unsurprising.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 12:01:14 pm
Didn't realize Santorum's wife was running for President. But using the same logic, Ron Paul was once the Libertarian Party's nominee for President, and now...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 12:13:18 pm
Have you written telling her she needs to wear a scarlet letter? You can't marry a woman with a past? really?

Nothing I wrote was an effort to stop Santorum from doing anything he wants, but when he holds himself AND HIS WIFE out as champions of the right to life and true opponents of abortion, then his wife's past becomes a real issue, particularly when that past included only six months before they got married.

Personally, as someone who considers abortion to be murder, which is how Santorum contends he sees it, it is hard to comprehend how he could have accepted that in a woman he was going to marry. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 12:14:21 pm
Fixed that for you.

You know, such blatant efforts at distortion REALLY is not surprising from a Santorum supporter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 12:21:42 pm
You know, such blatant efforts at distortion REALLY is not surprising from a Paul supporter.

Fixed again.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 28, 2012, 12:33:41 pm
Nothing I wrote was an effort to stop Santorum from doing anything he wants, but when he holds himself AND HIS WIFE out as champions of the right to life and true opponents of abortion, then his wife's past becomes a real issue, particularly when that past included only six months before they got married.

Personally, as someone who considers abortion to be murder, which is how Santorum contends he sees it, it is hard to comprehend how he could have accepted that in a woman he was going to marry. 

Perhaps he believes in forgiveness and redemption. Isn't a big part of the pro-life movement that he supports working to change hearts and minds? If so it would seem rather foolish to permanently brand someone that has had a change of heart because they may have had a checkered past.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 01:04:17 pm
Keys, if his wife had a change of heart or mind, that might be credible.  Her comments however do not indicate that.  She has been quoted essentially saying that what her boyfriend did was his business.... even if that "business" was killing unborn children, that she never tried to dissuade him from what he was doing, but that she always considered it murder.

And it is hard to see how someone who sincerely believes abortion is murder, which is the Santorum position, could marry someone who would have viewed the murders being committed by her live-in boyfriend of several years so casually.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 28, 2012, 01:09:32 pm
Love does strange things to people
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 01:15:12 pm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10529940-flashback-romney-voted-in-92-dem-primaries
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 01:32:50 pm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10529940-flashback-romney-voted-in-92-dem-primaries

And this is surprising to anyone..... why?

I have also voted in Democratic primaries, and don't quite consider myself a Democrat.

Romney has pointed out that in 1992 there was no meaningful primary on the Republican side, so he attempted to influence the Democratic choice of nominee, in other words trying to influence and distort the choice of candidates for the other party.  Santorum is now encouraging the other party to influence and distort the choice of his own party.

But, since Santorum is a "good Republican," at least according to you, encouraging Democrats to distort the selection of the Republican candidate must be just fine.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 01:39:14 pm
Ron Paul didn't seem to mind having Democrats vote for him in Iowa.

But, I guess it's ok for him to encourage them to distort the selection of the Republican candidate here...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 28, 2012, 02:01:39 pm
The fact that YOU did it that way, is not quite the same as saying that is the way it is always done.  I believe from your prior posts you were buying for the US military, which quite understandably will be doing so in US dollars.

But GM or other international corporations are not quite so limited.

Nor was Griffith International Corp. for whom I was the spice buyer for 12 years.  The experiences I mentioned came from buying Black Pepper, not military airplanes.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:44:44 pm
Santorum voted against all of the bailouts. Romney opposed the auto bailout, then supported his Wall Street buddies getting bailed out. That's the difference.

LOL! There's no difference at all. Romney told the auto industry that he didn't think a bailout would work for them. Santorum told them the same thing. The two bailouts are completely separate and unrelated issues. Trying to parse that in a different way is just a gutter-level attempt at taking advantage of people who care too much about slogans.

Here's the thing, it's likely that NEITHER stands a chance against Obama in MI. Why? Well, Obama can CREDIBLY make the argument that Santorum is attempting. The nonsense that Santorum is throwing around about being able to pull the Dem vote in MI, when he, too, voted against the bailout is laughable. Santorum is either delusional or dirty.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:46:27 pm
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-on-santorum-robocalls-outrageous-and-disgusting--20120228

As Santorum states, Romney didn't have an issue with Democrats voting when it was NH and he was winning. Funny how it is suddenly "outrageous" to look for crossover votes. He should quit whining and explain why this is even close in his home state.

NH is a decidedly different state, different from any other state in the Union in terms of the way its voters think and act. It's basically a whole bunch of independents. Some of them may register Dem, others Republican, but comparing NH to MI is laughable. To illustrate the point, over HALF the people who participated in the NH primary did NOT identify themselves as Republican. That's not because Romney actively courted the other side. That's the way NH goes EVERY year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:49:50 pm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10529940-flashback-romney-voted-in-92-dem-primaries

So you're suggesting Dems should vote Santorum in MI because he's the weaker candidate against Obama? Unless that's your argument, this is a complete non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:51:10 pm
All of these arguments are so fallacious its maddening.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:54:20 pm
Meanwhile, here's something that actually IS relevant:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/santorum-flips-on-dems-voting-in-gop-primaries/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:55:17 pm
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee. I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."

- Rick Santorum, 1/29/12
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 04:57:21 pm
I agree. All of your arguments are so fallacious it is maddening.

The fact that you cannot see the simplest of differences between a candidate telling both the rich guy and the little guy no, vs telling the little guy no but telling his rich buddies yes pretty much ruins your credibility.

Either you believe in stimulus/bailouts or you don't. Santorum doesn't. Romney obviously does when it helps his potential donors. We have that guy in office now.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:58:20 pm
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee. I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."

- Rick Santorum, 1/29/12
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 04:59:03 pm
ISF, I hope Santorum is not as black and white as you are. To say that one is either for or against bailouts is so simplistic it's stupid.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:00:06 pm
By the way, in case you missed this, I'll post it again:

"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee. I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."

- Rick Santorum, 1/29/12

Look at that date again. That's not 10 years ago. That's 10 weeks ago.

I've been quite transparent about the fact that I think Santorum is the wrong guy for the job, but I used to have respect for him. That's long gone.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 05:00:13 pm
Do you really want to play the flip-flop game? Excellent!

Romney lobbied Arlen Specter for federal earmarks in 2005:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/mitt-romney-lobbied-arlen-specter_n_1295388.html

Romney strongly supported No Child Left Behind:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/27/mitt_romney_in_2007_i_supported_no_child_left_behind_i_still_do.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:01:49 pm
ISF, those aren't the issues at hand. Michigan is the issue at hand.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 28, 2012, 05:03:18 pm
There is a big difference in an individual deciding to vote in the oppo party primary and a CANDIDATE asking for Dems to crash the primary and vote against Romney.  Take off your blinders ISF, if the situation was in reverse you would be howling.  As it is I don't think it will make a difference tonight.  It might cause problems for Santorum down the road.  Especially when this comes out http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/santorum-flips-on-dems-voting-in-gop-primaries/  Just a few weeks ago Rick was saying Dems shouldn't be voting in Republican primaries and now when he appears to be losing he goes against his "principles" yet again.  The guy is a hypocrite.  He wears his religion on his sleeve and yet gives 2% to charity?  Even Obama gave 14% of his income to charity.

Regardless, I predict Mitt will win both primaries tonight, pick up most of the delegates and pundits will say he had to fight harder than he should of for his home state.  That will be the narrative.  Remember, he only won NH because it is next to his home state.  He only won FL because he had more money.  He only won NV because it is next to his home state of UT.  He will only win AZ because it is next to his home state of UT.  He will only win MI because it is his home state.  I'm losing track though, how many home states can a guy have before people actually give him credit for winning?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:03:47 pm
By the way, instead of changing the topic, I encourage you to post an actual response to any of my arguments against Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 05:05:58 pm
Well, then wait until we start giving this airtime:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/22/1067288/-Mitt-Romney-flip-flops-himself-into-a-Democrat

Mitt goes Occupy Wall Street. His own words:

but for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying, paying the current share they’re paying or more.


How do you think conservatives with questions will like that vs asking for crossover vote?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 05:08:16 pm
tico, you still haven't explained the difference between bailouts. When does the government ever have the right to say "too big to fail"?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 05:09:19 pm
ISF, those aren't the issues at hand. Michigan is the issue at hand.

Nice dodge, but no. Romney made them an issue at the last debate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 28, 2012, 05:13:27 pm
Speaking of dodge.  How about explaining Santorum being against Dems voting in the primaries and then in desperation pandering to get their vote when he appears to be losing?  You have been asked to respond at least five times and either won't or can't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 28, 2012, 05:15:07 pm
Speaking of dodge.  How about explaining Santorum being against Dems voting in the primaries and then in desperation pandering to get their vote when he appears to be losing?  You have been asked to respond at least five times and either won't or can't.

He's just like a Mormon in his ability to ignore the tough questions and stay on party line no matter how idiotic that line might be.  You, of all people, must appreciate that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:15:33 pm
The difference between bailouts?? Umm, one industry represents the backbone of the global economy and is inextricably involved in every significant aspect of business, and the other represents isolated manufacturing jobs in a single state... and Ford showed the bailouts for the auto industry may have been unnecessary... yeah, pretty obviously different circumstances.

All bailouts or none is simplistic, stupid, black and white thinking.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:17:41 pm
Robb, it's not that ISF won't respond, it's that he CAN'T. He doesn't have a single logical response to any of the points I've made, so he's just flapping his arms wildly and trying to distract from that fact.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 28, 2012, 05:18:03 pm
The bank bailout is a much different animal than the auto bailout.  Like it or not, credit is the engine that fuels the economy, and the financial sector touches every other sector of the economy.  If the credit market fails, it's economic armageddon, which is what we went through in 2008-09.   It's unfortunate we had to bail out the banks for their completely reckless risk taking and manipulation in the housing market, but the economy completely collapses if people and companies don't have access to credit. 

That's not a choice of Romney favoring his fat cat buddies over auto industry workers.  He knows if the financial market fails, the entire economy goes to hell, and there are plenty of conservatives who view that as a completely justifiable conservative position.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292186/wall-street-billionaires-and-michigan-workers-jay-nordlinger (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292186/wall-street-billionaires-and-michigan-workers-jay-nordlinger)

(That being said, after reading The Big Short, I wish we hadn't bailed out the banks after all, and we just suffered the consequences of whatever fallout came from the banks failing.  It's pretty unhealthy for the government to be implicitly guaranteeing the absolute recklessness that led to the housing and financial meltdown, and big financial institutions don't ever seem to learn their lessons from these types of crises, especially when they know they're "too big to fail".  Still I can't fault anyone who thought we absolutely had to save the financial sector.  It's just too important to the overall economy.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 28, 2012, 05:19:23 pm
Romney wasn't hammering Santorum for the merits of No Child Left Behind.  He was hammering him for voting for it and then trying to have it the other way and saying he wasn't for it.  Romney lobbied for federal funding for help with low income assistance for heating fuel.  He joined with many governors in asking for that help.  Are you arguing that is the same as earmarking a polar bear exhibit for the Pittsburgh zoo?  Or the bridge to nowhere? Santorum even voted against an amendment wanting to specifically remove the bridge to nowhere.  Asking for federal funding is not earmarking.  Sorry but you should have read your link.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:20:12 pm
By the way, ISF, is Romney trying to line the pockets of his wall street buddies, or is he threatening to tax them to death? Is he a friend of the Fat Cats or an Occupy adherent? Make up your mind.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:22:46 pm
"But is there any thinking or respectable conservative who uses Rick Santorum’s language — the bank bailout was for Mitt Romney’s “Wall Street billionaire buddies” while Michigan workers got their faces slapped? (Santorum opposed the auto bailout, too. Was he slapping workers’ faces?)

Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t conservatism. It’s more like street-corner Marxism. What a strange and tragic pass we’ve reached."

Bingo.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 05:24:46 pm
Ha, I'm channeling that National Review article without having read it:

"Santorum also says that Romney is “an Occupy Wall Street adherent.” 1) It’s odd for such an adherent to have Wall Street billionaire buddies. 2) Campaign hyperbole is one thing; the language of the nuthouse is another."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on February 28, 2012, 05:25:16 pm
The dirty little secret about the bank bailout is it worked.  In fact the tax payers lost nothing in the bailout.  http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news/economy/tarp_program/index.htm  If you let the financial services sector crash, the economy crashes with it.  Mitt knows that, Bush knew it.  Even Gingrich knew it.  The junior senator for PA can afford to oppose it because the adults in the room saved our economy through Tarp and the country has been paid back. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 28, 2012, 05:29:10 pm
The dirty little secret about the bank bailout is it worked.  In fact the tax payers lost nothing in the bailout.  http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news/economy/tarp_program/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news/economy/tarp_program/index.htm)  If you let the financial services sector crash, the economy crashes with it.  Mitt knows that, Bush knew it.  Even Gingrich knew it.  The junior senator for PA can afford to oppose it because the adults in the room saved our economy through Tarp and the country has been paid back. 

That's also true.  If TARP had been just limited to buying the troubled mortgage assets and bank equity, TARP would have wound up being hugely profitable for the government.  (Unfortunately IIRC, TARP wound up going well beyond that, but that's always the problem with big government programs like that.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 28, 2012, 06:19:15 pm
Jeff Horn is right.  Mondaled.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 28, 2012, 06:36:07 pm
Campaigning is not about truth.  It's about getting elected.  Politics.

Curt, I also laughed out loud at the Modaled prediction, and it's looking more and more likely every day.  People just don't like Mitt Romney:  some because he's too stiff and keeps putting his foot in his mouth, some because he's Mormon, some because he's a Wall Street Rich Guy, some because he's not conservative enough.  I don't really get it, but there's something to it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 07:21:10 pm
Wow. The Romney cheerleaders are in full desperation mode.

1. I don't have to explain one flip by Santorum if you refuse to explain Mitt's hundreds of flips. You dodge and dodge and dodge and then think you've won  something because Rick is out getting crossover support after saying it shouldn't be done.  Go check out the results tonight and tell me what you've won.

2. Why is Mitt talking about taxing the 1%? I thought he was a Republican?

3. Santorum is about to win Michigan by 5+%.  Mitt has no one to blame but himself. He outspent everyone by a huge margin. He knew exactly what he had to do to win the nomination, and he has failed utterly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 28, 2012, 07:28:09 pm
Campaigning is not about truth.  It's about getting elected.  Politics.

Curt, I also laughed out loud at the Modaled prediction, and it's looking more and more likely every day.  People just don't like Mitt Romney:  some because he's too stiff and keeps putting his foot in his mouth, some because he's Mormon, some because he's a Wall Street Rich Guy, some because he's not conservative enough.  I don't really get it, but there's something to it.

DMF: if Republicans rip the guy they don't like as they do on this board, what happens when the Democrats take their shots once the nominee is selected?  I think it was Reagan who had the policy of speak no evil about a fellow Republican.  Even though I'm Independent, I miss that guy.   He gave Mondaled true meaning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 08:30:08 pm
Ron Paul didn't seem to mind having Democrats vote for him in Iowa.

But, I guess it's ok for him to encourage them to distort the selection of the Republican candidate here...


Paul has never indicated that he has a problem with it.

Neither have I.

I do have a problem with the kind of hypocrisy which you illustrated when you complained about Paul "not being a Republican" and distorting the process by attracting independent and Democratic voters, or anyone other than good, fundamentalist, Bible-thumping Republicans to vote in the primaries, and then thinking it is fine for Santorum to do as he did in Michigan.

And I have a problem with Santorum being a hypocrite in the same manner.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/santorum-flips-on-dems-voting-in-gop-primaries/
Santorum flips on Dems voting in GOP primaries
Posted by
CNN's Adam Aigner-Treworgy
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.

But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.

"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."

In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.

"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."

At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state


Santorum is a perfectly typical Washington politician, saying or doing whatever he believes to be expedient at the moment. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 28, 2012, 08:46:48 pm
Quote
what happens when the Democrats take their shots once the nominee is selected?

Yeah, that's why I enjoy it when people trot out polls that say their guy actually *is* electable, as if the general election were being held today.  The real courting of the independent voters who will decide the election (i.e., mudslinging) hasn't even begun yet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 08:52:38 pm
Santorum is either delusional or dirty.

That really is not an either/or proposition.

I find it difficult to think of him as not having both characteristics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 08:54:39 pm
Santorum is a perfectly typical Washington politician, saying or doing whatever he believes to be expedient at the moment. 

You mean like campaigning against earmark spending after being the 33rd most prolific earmarker in Congress?

Me, I'd rather a guy decide it was ok to get more people to vote for him than make an 81 million dollar cash grab...

 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 08:55:30 pm
I've been quite transparent about the fact that I think Santorum is the wrong guy for the job, but I used to have respect for him. That's long gone.

See that is where we are quite different.

I have NEVER had any respect for Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 08:56:59 pm
And I certainly have no use for a guy who parrots Occupy Wall Street talking points and props up government mandate for healthcare insurance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 08:59:05 pm
You mean like campaigning against earmark spending after being the 33rd most prolific earmarker in Congress?

Me, I'd rather a guy decide it was ok to get more people to vote for him than make an 81 million dollar cash grab...

Paul also voted AGAINST every earmark, including those which would help his district.  Santorum did not.  He supported the earmarks, supported the deficit spending, and supported raising the deficit limit.... all while proclaiming support for a balanced budget amendment.... a bit like Jeffrey Dahlmer begging to be stopped from eating any more human flesh as he sauteed his last murder victim.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 09:01:14 pm
tico is just mad his guy is scrapping for a win in his home state. He respected Santorum because he wasn't a danger.

If tico was being honest, he'd explain why all Mitt's flips are ok, but somehow because Santorum flipped on trying to get crossover support, he's dirty.
He can't, because no rational person can. It's a knee-jerk reaction to Romney possibly losing the nomination, a nomination that was supposed to be inevitable.

The cat's out of the bag; Romney is a fatally flawed candidate who doesn't match up well as a contrast to the incumbent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 28, 2012, 09:02:05 pm
Paul also voted AGAINST every earmark, including those which would help his district. 

Because he already knew they would pass. It's called being a hypocrite, and Paul is a champion at it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:03:01 pm
All bailouts or none is simplistic, stupid, black and white thinking.

Um.... why?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 28, 2012, 09:03:46 pm
Wrestlemania is coming up soon.  If these four settled it in a cage, it would make as much sense as ripping each other apart in the media.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:04:38 pm
Robb, it's not that ISF won't respond, it's that he CAN'T. He doesn't have a single logical response to any of the points I've made, so he's just flapping his arms wildly and trying to distract from that fact.

He hasn't even been able to articulate the litmus test which makes one person a Republican and would prevent another from being one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on February 28, 2012, 09:04:44 pm
The bank bailout worked.  The auto bailout worked as intended.  The recession did not become a Great Depression.  Entitlement and tax reform are on the table.  Deficit reduction is an acknowledged priority.  Deficit-reducing health care reform based on a free market model successfully implemented by a Republican governor at the state level -- in precisely the way "Our Federalism" is supposed to work -- has been enacted.  We are largely out of Iraq.  We are winding down in Afghanistan.  OBD and others are dead and there have been no major terrorist attacks.  Even critics concede that our foreign policy has been at least competent during very tumultuous times.  The President is a calm, poised (in the face of vicious attacks), smart, gracious, a good father and husband, etc.

And yet we still get descriptions of Obama as a socialist menace and comments like "Even Obama gave 14% of his income to charity," as if the guy is some sort of low life . . . .

Look, he's a Democrat, and he's pursuing Democratic policies.  He is not a Libertarian.  He is not committed to shrinking government back to pre-New Deal levels.  He believes in environmental and financial regulation.  People here oppose those policies, so they oppose the President.  I get that; I really do.  But what I don't get -- truly -- is the invective and ill will directed towards a man who is admirable, has been working hard, and has been leading our country through incredibly troubled waters.  I actually read an article posted on the Bears board by some guy who goes by "Packrat" predicting that Obama would cancel elections and assume dictatorial powers if he wins the 2012 election -- because that's right out of the Socialist playbook.  I mean -- WTF?!  I thought Bush was a bad President, and I did not want him reelected. But I certainly wanted him to succeed in leading us through our troubles.  Whatever happened to the "loyal opposition" and "we're all in this together" and all that stuff?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:27:13 pm
The dirty little secret about the bank bailout is it worked. 

Depends entirely on how you define "worked."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:30:43 pm
(That being said, after reading The Big Short, I wish we hadn't bailed out the banks after all, and we just suffered the consequences of whatever fallout came from the banks failing.  It's pretty unhealthy for the government to be implicitly guaranteeing the absolute recklessness that led to the housing and financial meltdown, and big financial institutions don't ever seem to learn their lessons from these types of crises, especially when they know they're "too big to fail".  Still I can't fault anyone who thought we absolutely had to save the financial sector.  It's just too important to the overall economy.)

It IS important to the entire economy.... which is why it is important to have it functioning properly and not taking foolish risks.  The way a free market avoids foolish risks is to allow those who have made them to suffer the consequences.  The way we encourage more such foolish risks is to bail out those who made them.

If you want the financial sector to function as the free market requires, you need to allow those who take foolish risks to fail.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 28, 2012, 09:34:00 pm
I always suspected that ECF was a commie.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:35:51 pm
3. Santorum is about to win Michigan by 5+%.  Mitt has no one to blame but himself. He outspent everyone by a huge margin. He knew exactly what he had to do to win the nomination, and he has failed utterly.

Yea, those out counties are going to come in any second now.....

Any second now....

Any second now....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 28, 2012, 09:39:00 pm
I always suspected that ECF was a commie.

Suspected?  I saw his party card years ago.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:42:59 pm
The bank bailout worked.  The auto bailout worked as intended.  The recession did not become a Great Depression.

The Great Depression only became the Great Depression as a result of government meddling in the economy.  Other nations recovered much more quickly.

The bank bailout worked if "worked" means prevented bankers and Wall Street from losing their shirts.  It did not work if "worked" means helping the economy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2012, 09:43:42 pm
Any second now....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 28, 2012, 10:03:44 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/ozzie-guillen-one-rule-time-national-anthem-202249956.html

Was never a bg Ozzie fan but you have to appreciate this.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 10:49:34 pm
tico is just mad his guy is scrapping for a win in his home state. He respected Santorum because he wasn't a danger.

Not quite, but that's ok. I've never been excited about Romney. I was for McCain last time around. Romney's just the best of what's around right now. My respect for Santorum never had anything to do with his position relative to Romney. You keep assuming stuff about me and making this a personal issue. Makes you a great representative for the guy you support.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 28, 2012, 10:50:40 pm
ECF, great post. I was talking with my wife earlier tonight about the solid job that Obama has done.

I don't agree with the principles behind his decisions, but he's gotten more right than he has wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 29, 2012, 07:31:33 am
He has principles?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 07:33:06 am
I've never been excited about Romney

Neither have I.  My guy was, and remains, Paul, but Romney would be preferable to Gingrich or Santorum.

You keep assuming stuff about me and making this a personal issue. Makes you a great representative for the guy you support.

ISF's conduct in his posts here -- making it personal, refusing to respond to simple and perfectly appropriate questions, hypocrisy, sanctimonious tone, and aggressive distortion of what others have posted -- does genuinely make him a great representative for the guy hes supports.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 07:38:09 am
I don't agree with the principles behind his decisions, but he's gotten more right than he has wrong.

What in the world has he gotten right?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 07:43:00 am
In light of the earlier posts on the hypocrisy of Santorum.....

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120228/NEWS15/120228049/Many-Democrats-voting-Santorum-Paul-deny-Romney-Michigan-win&odyssey=mod|breaking|text|FRONTPAGE

Mitt Romney eked out a slim victory in Michigan — no thanks to voters like Dennis Budziszewski, 63, of Canton.

A diehard Democrat and retired autoworker, Budziszewski doesn’t like Romney, so he voted for former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum to try to embarrass Romney. He said he’ll vote for President Barack Obama in November.

“I’ve been pushing this on Facebook for days,” he said.

Some Democrats tried to get their fellow partisans to vote for Santorum or Ron Paul to rob Romney of victory. On Monday, the Santorum campaign sent electronic phone calls urging Democrats to vote for him.


Not in an effort by Santorum or his supporters to even give Santorum a win.... but to "rob Romney of victory."  But when Paul appeals to Democrats and indepents who he would likely also carry in November AND is seeking to win, that somehow is wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 07:53:04 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/books/the-escape-artists-by-noam-scheiber.html

Much has already been written about President Obama’s economic team, and much of it has been highly critical.
 
Alessandra Montalto/The New York Times
THE ESCAPE ARTISTS
How Obama’s Team Fumbled the Recovery
By Noam Scheiber
351 pages. Simon & Schuster. $28.

Richard Wolffe described it as “the most dysfunctional group of the president’s advisers.” Michael Hirsh wondered why many of the people who “let the catastrophe” of 2008 happen — through their deregulatory policies in the Clinton administration — were back “running the show.” Ron Suskind argued that Mr. Obama’s bold campaign promises to implement a broad swath of new fiscal regulations gave way to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s more tepid, Wall Street-friendly approach. And the economist Joseph Stiglitz slammed the Obama administration for “directing most of its efforts at rescuing the banks” and for a stimulus that was too small and poorly targeted.

“The Escape Artists,” a new book by Noam Scheiber, a senior editor at The New Republic, echoes such sentiments and goes on to provide a depressing account of what the author sees as the Obama team’s repeated failures to grapple forcefully with the economy and unemployment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 29, 2012, 08:56:12 am
ISF's conduct in his posts here -- making it personal, refusing to respond to simple and perfectly appropriate questions, hypocrisy, sanctimonious tone, and aggressive distortion of what others have posted -- does genuinely make him a great representative for the guy hes supports.

Wow. Considering who this came from, the hypocrisy is surreal.

tico, you made this personal by attacking me with comments that I couldn't and wouldn't answer questions, while you completely avoided mine.
In this case, you have now dodged the issue by trying to claim high ground you do not possess. I have, 3 times now, answered your "big deal" question by saying that Rick flipped and went after crossover support.

Since it is clear you feel this is a purity exam, tyou will now answer for why

1. Mitt flipped on No Child Left Behind.

2. Mitt flipped on Federal earmarking

3. Mitt flipped on taxing the rich.

All in a week and a half.




Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 29, 2012, 09:02:44 am
All bailouts or none is simplistic, stupid, black and white thinking.

That isn't personal, is it tico?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 29, 2012, 09:03:10 am
Robb, it's not that ISF won't respond, it's that he CAN'T. He doesn't have a single logical response to any of the points I've made, so he's just flapping his arms wildly and trying to distract from that fact.

Nope. Nothing personal there...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 09:10:05 am
That isn't personal, is it tico?

So at least you are not denying that you have been engaging in purely personal attacks, not attacks on the merits of a position, or even personal attacks of a candidate, but purely personal attacks on other posters.

Now, are you also willing to admit that many of those personal attacks came without provocation or without that poster first making any personal attacks on you?

And, considering your posting of at least two of my comments with the actual wording deliberately and clearly changed, can you direct me to a single instance of any post of mine were I have done anything remotely close to that with one of your posts?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 29, 2012, 09:24:59 am
So at least you are not denying that you have been engaging in purely personal attacks, not attacks on the merits of a position, or even personal attacks of a candidate, but purely personal attacks on other posters.

No Jes, I have not been engaging in purely personal attacks. I have been engaged in defending my candidate and pointing out the flaws in others, the same as you and everyone else. One could certainly make the case your attacks have been purely personal, as your comments about Santorum have been disgusting and you've tried to slime anyone associated with him in the process.

That isn't surprising, considering how the Paul campaign conducted themselves in Iowa.

Now, can you admit that you made those comments and attacks without provocation?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on February 29, 2012, 10:09:15 am
After thinking about it even further, there's really no reason for me to post here anymore.
I had stopped for a long time, and only started again because several people had asked me to post updates from the campaign in Iowa.

Iowa is over and, sadly, there's nothing enjoyable about posting here now.

I'm sure Jes will trumpet this as somehow being a victory for him, but I fail to see how driving people away is a victory.
You all can judge for yourselves.

Ironically, someone posted about Reagan's 11th amendment, and I much prefer that type of campaign.
But the objective of a campaign is to win, and when the other candidates and their supporters let the hounds loose, you can either respond or lose.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 29, 2012, 10:30:16 am
That isn't personal, is it tico?

Regarding the simplistic, stupid, black and white comment, it was in criticism of a way of thinking. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word stupid. That said, I'll stand behind the notion. It's an incredibly poor way to think about issues. Either way it's about a thought process, a manner of reasoning, not about a person.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 10:31:22 am
But the objective of a campaign is to win, and when the other candidates and their supporters let the hounds loose, you can either respond or lose.

Or you can assure that YOU lose, and also increase the chances that the party also loses.


I fail to see how driving people away is a victory.

A lit depends on who it is that is driven away.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 10:38:28 am
Regarding the simplistic, stupid, black and white comment, it was in criticism of a way of thinking. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word stupid. That said, I'll stand behind the notion. It's an incredibly poor way to think about issues. Either way it's about a thought process, a manner of reasoning, not about a person.

And, tico, I asked the question "Ummm, why?" in response to that comment from you.

It was a perfectly serious question.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 29, 2012, 10:51:12 am
Wow. Considering who this came from, the hypocrisy is surreal.

tico, you made this personal by attacking me with comments that I couldn't and wouldn't answer questions, while you completely avoided mine.
In this case, you have now dodged the issue by trying to claim high ground you do not possess. I have, 3 times now, answered your "big deal" question by saying that Rick flipped and went after crossover support.

Since it is clear you feel this is a purity exam, tyou will now answer for why

1. Mitt flipped on No Child Left Behind.

2. Mitt flipped on Federal earmarking

3. Mitt flipped on taxing the rich.

All in a week and a half.

I never responded to any of your questions because I wasn't going to play the game of continually posting questions and seeing who ends up with the most unanswered questions.

That said, here are my answers. I'm not aware of a flip on no child. Post the conflicting statements so I can learn about it. Either way, my guess is this is more an issue of campaign rhetoric than anything else. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you have the info to show me.

The federal earmarking issue is another one of those absurd slogan issues that, frankly, I don't care about. On one hand it's been blown way out of proportion. On the other it's a much more nuanced issue than the headlines and sound bytes make it appear to be. On top of all this, it's more a symptom of the underlying problem than anything else. Going after it is a waste of time. I don't hold the earmarking issue against either Romney or Santorum. it's a goofy thing to spend time on, but the electorate wants to hear about it, so we talk about it.

On taxing the rich, I don't think there has been a flip. Mitt has always brlieved in a progressive tax system, as far as I know. Just like most republicans, there are ways he'd like to reform the tax code so that it incentivizes good behavior. He'd also like to maintain the fact that the wealthy bear a larger part of the burden of supporting the federal government. That's not a flip.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 29, 2012, 11:12:03 am
After thinking about it even further, there's really no reason for me to post here anymore.
I had stopped for a long time, and only started again because several people had asked me to post updates from the campaign in Iowa.

Iowa is over and, sadly, there's nothing enjoyable about posting here now.

I'm sure Jes will trumpet this as somehow being a victory for him, but I fail to see how driving people away is a victory.
You all can judge for yourselves.

Ironically, someone posted about Reagan's 11th amendment, and I much prefer that type of campaign.
But the objective of a campaign is to win, and when the other candidates and their supporters let the hounds loose, you can either respond or lose.

Iowa, even though I support Romney and am not exactly Santorum's biggest fan, I do want to say I have a lot of respect for you working for him and really think it's neat the work you've done for him in Iowa.  I definitely have a lot of respect for how hard Santorum worked to get himself from being an afterthought in the race to getting to the point where he has a real shot at the nomination. 

Honestly there's a lot about Santorum that I do like where I wish I could get behind him more.  He really does connect well with blue collar voters, and like I said, I really respect how hard he's worked to get himself to the point where he has a shot at being nominated.  One thing he mentions a lot that's "controversial" but that I have a lot of sympathy with is how it's a shame that today's society doesn't support having a parent stay at home to raise children.  It kind of is a way of life nowadays, especially with people moving to the cities where it's more expensive to live, that many families need two incomes to have a good standard of living, but when I have kids, I really don't like the idea of my kids being raised by day care and not seeing either of their parents until they come dragging in at 8-9 p.m. or later at night and both of them spending so many hours focusing on their careers that they don't have time for them.  I don't want that to turn out to be the case at all for my family, and I think he's right about that trend not being a very healthy thing for society.  A lot of things he says socially that get a lot of controversy like that, I like and have sympathy for, even though I really don't want to have government interfering with it either and am not sure will be great politics going against Obama.

To me, he seems like a pretty good person (definitely a lot better person than Gingrich, who honestly is someone I truly have come to detest during this process), and I can understand why you're really supportive of him.  I just can't get behind him, but I did want you to know that I do have a lot of respect for him in a lot of areas and really respect your support for him and how hard you were working for him in Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 11:43:47 am
No Jes, I have not been engaging in purely personal attacks. I have been engaged in defending my candidate and pointing out the flaws in others, the same as you and everyone else.

ISF, at some point, it might be a good exercise for you to wade back thru the last two weeks of posts here to identify, even if just for yourself, just where the exchanges became truly personal and nasty.  Not just negative toward candidates, but toward individual posters.

In light of your comment above, I not only went looking for some of those posts of yours which were "not been engaging in purely personal attacks," but also trying to identify where it started.  And I believe I have.

First let me list some of your better posts which where were not "purely personal attacks:"

Gallup did the polling that shows those numbers. Pretending that it doesn't mean/say anything because USA Today hired them and did a story about the results is...well...rather lawyerish, and another example of how the information is easily accessible but you refuse to do the homework so that you can pretend something is wrong.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed again.

Both of those last posts involved you taking what I posted clearly and deliberately altering the content of my post.

Sorry Jes. I thought I remembered you saying you were somehow involved in politics at one time. Clearly I was mistaken.

Jes, again, I answered you. Ignoring the answer doesn't mean I haven't. It just means you're too lazy to do your own homework.

Now, let's all put on our tin foil hats and try to examine how that can be code for "I want to take your birth control away"...

Wow. Considering who this came from, the hypocrisy is surreal.

tico is just mad his guy is scrapping for a win in his home state. He respected Santorum because he wasn't a danger.

If tico was being honest....

Now, since I doubt you are keeping your promise to leave, could you look thru the prior posts from me, or from tico, to find the personal attacks on you which came BEFORE yours?

It appeared to me that the first post from tico which might be interpreted as a personal attack on another poster here was this one:

ISF, I hope Santorum is not as black and white as you are. To say that one is either for or against bailouts is so simplistic it's stupid.

And that post from tico came after this one from you:

I agree. All of your arguments are so fallacious it is maddening.

The fact that you cannot see the simplest of differences between a candidate telling both the rich guy and the little guy no, vs telling the little guy no but telling his rich buddies yes pretty much ruins your credibility.

So if you really don't like negative personal attacks on you.... don't start making them on others.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on February 29, 2012, 12:06:25 pm
You all are acting like a group of preschoolers who missed nap time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 29, 2012, 01:12:48 pm
It's enough to make one want to vote Democratic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on February 29, 2012, 01:55:58 pm
Iowa, even though I support Romney and am not exactly Santorum's biggest fan, I do want to say I have a lot of respect for you working for him and really think it's neat the work you've done for him in Iowa.  I definitely have a lot of respect for how hard Santorum worked to get himself from being an afterthought in the race to getting to the point where he has a real shot at the nomination. 

Honestly there's a lot about Santorum that I do like where I wish I could get behind him more.  He really does connect well with blue collar voters, and like I said, I really respect how hard he's worked to get himself to the point where he has a shot at being nominated.  One thing he mentions a lot that's "controversial" but that I have a lot of sympathy with is how it's a shame that today's society doesn't support having a parent stay at home to raise children.  It kind of is a way of life nowadays, especially with people moving to the cities where it's more expensive to live, that many families need two incomes to have a good standard of living, but when I have kids, I really don't like the idea of my kids being raised by day care and not seeing either of their parents until they come dragging in at 8-9 p.m. or later at night and both of them spending so many hours focusing on their careers that they don't have time for them.  I don't want that to turn out to be the case at all for my family, and I think he's right about that trend not being a very healthy thing for society.  A lot of things he says socially that get a lot of controversy like that, I like and have sympathy for, even though I really don't want to have government interfering with it either and am not sure will be great politics going against Obama.

To me, he seems like a pretty good person (definitely a lot better person than Gingrich, who honestly is someone I truly have come to detest during this process), and I can understand why you're really supportive of him.  I just can't get behind him, but I did want you to know that I do have a lot of respect for him in a lot of areas and really respect your support for him and how hard you were working for him in Iowa.

I disagree. There is nothing admirable about working to get such a despicable creature elected president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on February 29, 2012, 01:56:20 pm
I disagree. There is nothing admirable about working to get such a despicable creature elected president.

OK
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 29, 2012, 02:38:31 pm
Rick santuroms base would consist of..."white, working-class, traditional, patriarchal, borderline theocratic and seething with resentment at everyone except the rich. Santorum is the latest right-wing demagogue who rails at the real and imagined sins of liberal cultural elites (joining Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace and Spiro Agnew, to name but a few), but in his zeal to damage Romney in Michigan, he has more effectively damaged himself throughout professional America.

Not since McCarthy decided to attack the U.S. Army for allegedly coddling communists has a reactionary populist been so wide of the mark as Santorum was in attacking President Obama as a “snob” for saying he would like more young people to go to college. “There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them,” Santorum said this weekend. “I understand why [Obama] wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image...”

The longer the campaign drags on, the more Santorum reveals his real self, astonishing millions of Americans with the intensity of his war on modernity. We now know that Santorum is not one to put much stock in schools, whether K-12 (he’s a home-schooler) or college. He doesn’t put much stock in science, as his denial of global warming attests. He is nauseated by John Kennedy’s affirmation of the need to separate church and state. His is a world where faith trumps empiricism, where book learnin’ inspires a certain contempt, where the attainment of knowledge comes with an unacceptable Faustian risk or, at minimum, a heavy dose of snootiness."

Please nominate him and thank you Harold Meyerson.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 03:46:37 pm
I disagree. There is nothing admirable about working to get such a despicable creature elected president.

Cletus, what makes Santorum despicable, in your mind, and which candidates still running would not be?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 29, 2012, 04:07:23 pm
Santorum takes his religion seriously.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 04:39:45 pm
.... and thank you Harold Meyerson.

Would that be because you can't present a coherent thought of your own?

While I have little use for Santorum, he was right about the foolish notion that everyone should go to college, or that we even need to try to increase the number of people going to college, and he is also correct in pointing out the inherent snobbery in thinking that those who do NOT go to college are somehow inferior to those who do, so we need to get everyone in and thru college to "improve" them.  America actually has had a number of jobs which companies haven't been able to fill the last few years, but they are generally jobs involving vocational training, trades school training or are skilled/semi-skilled jobs where college education is irrelevant.

It is foolish to have federal tax dollars spent encouraging folks to pursue educations which they can not afford and which do not help them get the jobs which are most needing to be filled.... and THAT is exactly what Obama has been encouraging.  Santorum called him out on it.  As with a stopped watch, Santorum was right for once.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 29, 2012, 05:08:47 pm
jes

Can you post for everyone the quote from our President where he stated that everyone should go to college or the "snobbery" you claim from it.

Otherwise your just being a richard.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2012, 06:22:34 pm
jes  Can you post for everyone the quote from our President where he stated that everyone should go to college or the "snobbery" you claim from it.

Otherwise your just being a richard.   

otto, can you post for everyone the quote from me where I stated that Obama stated that everyone should go to college?

Otherwise, you're just being a Rick Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 10:15:25 am
Quote
he was right about the foolish notion that everyone should go to college, or that we even need to try to increase the number of people going to college, and he is also correct in pointing out the inherent snobbery in thinking that those who do NOT go to college are somehow inferior to those who do, so we need to get everyone in and thru college to "improve" them.

Back this assertion up Richard.

Show where our President stated these points that you claim santorum proved.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2012, 11:35:10 am
otto, you REALLY need help with reading comprehension.  Just as I did not claim Obama SAID or stated ANYTHING, I also never said or even suggested that Santorum "proved" anything.

I AGREED with a single point Santorum made.  Vastly different from saying he "proved" anything, and I never attributed any statement to Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 01, 2012, 01:11:30 pm
It's enough to make one want to vote Democratic.


Yeah...until you wander on over to the Preschool Democrats Forum.

What's going on here is no different than what's happening everywhere. Have you watched cable "news" lately?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 01, 2012, 01:13:57 pm
heh, who would have dreamed five years ago that between FOX and MSNBC, CNN would almost be the most balanced?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 01, 2012, 01:14:51 pm
What's going on with this "being a richard" thing.  Don't tell me we can't use the word Dick.

Dick lost almost all his money last Saturday at the casino playing craps. (almost true story)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 01, 2012, 01:16:19 pm
What's going on with this "being a richard" thing.  Don't tell me we can't use the word Dick.

Dick lost almost all his money last Saturday at the **** playing craps. (almost true story)

It gets misread as FDISK.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 01, 2012, 01:18:55 pm
More often than you can imagine.

FDISK has also been known to lose money at the ****.

It sucks to be a dick and lose all your money at the ****.

At least the dick isn't losing it at the brothel.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 01, 2012, 01:23:25 pm
Okay!!!   That's it!!!

We can type the word "brothel" but not the word "****"? 

CENSORSHIP!!!!  Obviously somebody prefers debauchery to gambling. (who wouldn't?)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2012, 01:42:04 pm
FDISK, while it is always risky to try to figure out just what otto means with anything he posts, I believe he is referring to "a richard" as being "like Rick Santorum," who he considers to be a liar, that being "a richard," in his mind is being a liar.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 01, 2012, 01:46:44 pm
Oh...okay.  I just figured "Richard" was code for "Dick", which in turn is code for...well... "dick"...which in turn is code for....


It much easier if you know the code.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 02:46:14 pm
Once again jes is trying incredibly hard to read more into anything than needed. I just assumed I could not call him a dick. Which when mentioned in the same sentence as santurom means snob.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2012, 02:48:43 pm
The one thing I did not try to read anything into, otto, was your claim that I said Obama stated anything, or that I suggested that Santorum "proved" anything.

That was expressly clear from your posts.

And, by the way, have you yet found where I did either of those?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 03:16:00 pm
jes did you or not post this.

Quote
he was right about the foolish notion that everyone should go to college, or that we even need to try to increase the number of people going to college, and he is also correct in pointing out the inherent snobbery in thinking that those who do NOT go to college are somehow inferior to those who do, so we need to get everyone in and thru college to "improve" them.

You confirmed the angry catholic santurom on the points. I'm calling bullshiite and demanding that you back up your post. I called for you to privide the statements from our President Barack Hussein Obama that would support the confrimation of "foolish notion" et al.

Its simple.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 03:18:35 pm
Richard.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2012, 06:30:54 pm
good, otto, you have figured out how to get a person's post to appear in your own as a quote.

Now figure out where it is that I claimed Obama SAID or stated ANYTHING, and also point me to the language OF MINE where I said or even suggested that Santorum "proved" anything.

Those were the things you claimed in your first post directed at me in this thread.  For your reference that post from you was as follows:

jes

Can you post for everyone the quote from our President where he stated that everyone should go to college or the "snobbery" you claim from it.

Otherwise your just being a richard.

Then you quickly followed that up by expanding your foolishness to write that I there were some
points that you claim santorum proved.

Find the language.  Direct me to where I said Obama said a damn thing, or that Santorum ever proved anything.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 09:31:29 pm
Quote
he was right

Simple enough.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 09:32:02 pm
Richard.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 09:44:52 pm
Or this...Did you or not post this...

Quote
and THAT is exactly what Obama has been encouraging.  Santorum called him out on it.  As with a stopped watch, Santorum was right for once.

Simple.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 01, 2012, 09:45:22 pm
Richard.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2012, 09:50:06 pm
otto, did you get far enough in school to learn that when words are used in a sentence, sometimes you have to look at all of them in the sentence to understand what is being said?  That you can't just pick two or three of them out, without looking at what can before or after them, to determine what is being said?

Or are you truly as stupid as you seem?  Or is it just that you are a dishonest SOB?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 02, 2012, 08:03:56 am
jes, the context of your posts was to agree with the santurom on the snobby college statement, was it not?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 02, 2012, 08:14:15 am
otto, until you can find the language where you can quote what you have claimed I said, AND my words actually remotely resemble your claim, I am thru engaging with you.... other than, from time to time, pointing out the obvious.... that you are an idiot and a lying sack of sh*t.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 02, 2012, 09:05:35 am
Quote
While I have little use for Santorum, he was right about the foolish notion that everyone should go to college, or that we even need to try to increase the number of people going to college, and he is also correct in pointing out the inherent snobbery in thinking that those who do NOT go to college are somehow inferior to those who do, so we need to get everyone in and thru college to "improve" them.  America actually has had a number of jobs which companies haven't been able to fill the last few years, but they are generally jobs involving vocational training, trades school training or are skilled/semi-skilled jobs where college education is irrelevant.

It is foolish to have federal tax dollars spent encouraging folks to pursue educations which they can not afford and which do not help them get the jobs which are most needing to be filled.... and THAT is exactly what Obama has been encouraging.  Santorum called him out on it.  As with a stopped watch, Santorum was right for once.

Context also shows that you agreed with the following santurom points (not just one unnamed one) 1. The "foolish notion" about everyone should go to college. 2. The need to increase the number of young kids going to college. 3. The "inherent snobbery" 4. The "improve" them indoctrination thru Liberalism of young folks.

The context of the post clearly shows that you support the santuroms assertions because of statements made by the President which state those assertions.  Show us the proof.

Otherwise your just being a tea party Richard.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 02, 2012, 03:56:30 pm
Why does it cost $13,000 for an appendectomy in the US, but only $257 in India?

By Ezra Klein, Washington Post
March 2, 2012


There is a simple reason health care in the United States costs more than it does anywhere else: The prices are higher.

That may sound obvious. But it is, in fact, key to understanding one of the most pressing problems facing our economy. In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html?hpid=z2)

I can't wait for jes to defend the high prices as his HMO sends him to India because it costs less. I can't wait for conservatives here in America to bust the cororate boardroom union which conspires to keep prices/profits high.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 02, 2012, 07:31:39 pm
I can't wait for otto to post the actual quotes showing me writing what he claims I did, which was the pre-requisite to me responding to any of his mindlessness.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 02, 2012, 08:23:27 pm
Why does it cost $13,000 for an appendectomy in the US, but only $257 in India?

By Ezra Klein, Washington Post
March 2, 2012

One major contributor to medical costs in the US is the incredible amounts of money awarded in lawsuits.  I have seen estimates that more than 20% of medical costs are due to malpractice isureance, and almost 33% more are the result of Insurance-required testing that is done to avoid such suits

In India, there are no such lawsuits of that magnutude, and a large majority of tests given routinely in the United States simply are not done in India.


There is a simple reason health care in the United States costs more than it does anywhere else: The prices are higher.

That may sound obvious. But it is, in fact, key to understanding one of the most pressing problems facing our economy. In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html?hpid=z2)

I can't wait for jes to defend the high prices as his HMO sends him to India because it costs less. I can't wait for conservatives here in America to bust the cororate boardroom union which conspires to keep prices/profits high.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2012, 10:40:22 pm
As Santorum was reaching out to Democrats in the Michigan primary.....

http://santorumforgop.tumblr.com/post/15430834647/a-call-to-all-progressives-liberals-and-anyone-else
A call to all progressives, liberals, and anyone else sick of Republican extremism
This is a call to action.  A call to everyone who thinks the Republican party has made itself so ridiculous over the past decade that it deserves unending shame and ridicule.  This is a call to support Rick Santorum for the GOP nomination to the presidency.

What’s that?  Support Rick Santorum, you say?  The candidate who hates gays, wants the law to make women once again subservient to men, and perpetuates stereotypes about blacks as welfare addicts?  Why on Earth would we support this bigot?
But hear me out, here.  This is NOT a call to support Rick Santorum for president.  This is a call to manipulate the Republican party into showing its hand and laying bare the full extent of its ridiculousness.  You see, Rick Santorum cannot possibly win the presidency.  His ridiculousness is so obvious, middle America will never fall in line behind him.  Unlike Mitt Romney, who comes across as reasonable, at times even moderate, but is really a ridiculous extremist in disguise, Santorum broadcasts his ridiculousness loud and clear for all to see.  Furthermore, Santorum’s last name is a synonym for something very dirty.  He’s been a big enough **** to enough people that he’s been effectively renamed “Mr. Ass Juice” (For those who haven’t had enough Google fun with him yet, googling “santorum ass juice” is also worthwhile).  Every headline about him reads like a dirty joke.  The only thing stopping Jon Stewart from making Santorum Ass Juice jokes every episode is his pledge not to.  What undecided voter could come to support the Ass Juice Candidate?
Mitt Romney is a threat in the next election.  Rick Santorum is not.   That is why it is up to us, as those who want to see the Republican party fail spectacularly in 2012, to do everything in our power to make sure Santorum is the Republican nominee.
If we get called by a pollster, we should tell them we’re voting Santorum.  If we live in a state with an open primary, we should go to the polls and actually vote Santorum.  We should get our friends on board, and tell them all the reasons why THEY should support Santorum…for the primary only. 


http://santorumforgop.tumblr.com/post/15499758405/reason-1-to-support-santorum-he-will-lose
Reason #1 To Support Santorum: He Will Lose
If nominated, Santorum will lose to Obama, and will make the GOP look bad in the process.

After Iowa, there are three candidates remaining who stand a chance of winning the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Their names are Paul, Romney, and Santorum.

Two out of the three often sound reasonable to independents, moderates and center-right voters who identify as “slightly conservative”.   The other one consistently sounds completely bonkers.  The candidate that consistently sounds bonkers on almost every issue is none other than Rick Santorum.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 03, 2012, 10:43:48 pm
Too bad Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is so crazy....

http://www.thenation.com/blog/166539/when-did-united-states-last-kill-al-qaeda-fighter-afghanistan
When Did the United States Last Kill an Al Qaeda Fighter in Afghanistan?
George Zornick on March 1, 2012 - 10:43 AM ET
Earlier this week, White House press secretary Jay Carney took a beating on the issue of Afghanistan, following a spate of bad news from the war zone—including more American deaths at the hands of supposed Afghan allies. He was peppered with questions from reporters about the viability, purpose and waning public support for the American mission there. No less than ten times, Carney repeated some version of this justification:

What the President did when he reviewed U.S. policy in Afghanistan was insist that we focus our attention on what our absolute goals in the country should be, and prioritize them. And he made clear that the number-one priority, the reason why U.S. troops are in Afghanistan in the first place, is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda. It was, after all, al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, that launched the attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001.

Finally, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked Carney when was “the last time US troops in Afghanistan killed anybody associated with Al Qaeda.” Carney didn’t have an answer, and referred Tapper to the Defense Department and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force.

I queried those agencies Tuesday and got an answer today. According to a Defense Department spokesman, the most recent operation that killed an Al Qaeda fighter was in April 2011—ten months ago. However, there was an “Al Qaeda foreign fighter” captured near Kabul in May 2011, and an “Al Qaeda facilitator” captured in the Paktiya province on January 30 of this year.

By comparison, there have been 466 coalition fatalities since April 2011.

Given Carney’s repeated insistence that the “number one”  purpose of the American mission is to “disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat” Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and given the ongoing sacrifices the country is making to achieve that goal, it’s very important to keep these benchmarks in mind. It is surprising Carney wasn’t aware of them, or didn’t disclose them—though, perhaps it’s not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 05, 2012, 11:08:56 am
Too bad grandpa Paul is running for President for continued name recognition only.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 05, 2012, 11:17:13 am
What makes you think he is running for name recognition only?  Do you have any proof, or are you just spouting silly liberal propaganda again?

And if true, why is that bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 05, 2012, 12:37:02 pm
Quote
What makes you think he is running for name recognition only?

1. He has ZERO chance of winning the republic nomination.
2. Most of his liberation views run contrary to the established wingnut tea party positions each candidate most espouse.
3. jes supports him.
4. If he ends the name recognition run he disappears from the republic party radar and just becomes an old kook.
5. He's mentioned in the Norsk Sagas.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on March 05, 2012, 01:12:25 pm
It's been observed in the past that the geographic attributes of voting blocks are quite notable in that you can almost color all major metropolises blue and everything else red. It's worth noting that these geographic characteristics are at play in the Republican primary. For example, in Ohio, Romney expects to do well in and around the urban centers of Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, while Santorum will draw votes from the outlying and rural parts of the state.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 05, 2012, 04:06:52 pm
1. He has ZERO chance of winning the republic nomination.
2. Most of his liberation views run contrary to the established wingnut tea party positions each candidate most espouse.
3. jes supports him.
4. If he ends the name recognition run he disappears from the republic party radar and just becomes an old kook.
5. He's mentioned in the Norsk Sagas.

Except for # 2, and your silly historical reference, it sounds like Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton.  Did you whine when they were running in 2008?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2012, 08:40:35 am
Why would I have a problem with them? Dennis still doing what he does and Sharpton took the Presidential run and landed a nice job at MSNBC.

And the Democractic Party's election turned out very nicely.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 06, 2012, 09:04:55 am
Looks like Romney has been gaining some serious ground in Tennessee lately, as well as in Ohio.  Nate Silver now has Romney favored in Ohio, which wasn't looking very good for Romney a week or two ago.  If he wins both of those states, that really should wrap it up.  Ought to be a really interesting night tonight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 06, 2012, 09:28:55 am
As much as Romney gaining ground is the fact that Santorum is losing it.  Santorum is someone who the more you look at him, the closer he resembles a toad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2012, 04:28:53 pm
Neither one of them are gaining ground. Santurom is just losing it faster.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 06, 2012, 07:17:25 pm
davepe

Why aren't you more angry at the blingrinch for splitting the tea bag party vote and allowing mittens to coast to the nomination?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 06, 2012, 07:44:53 pm
Sorry, Oddo.  You need to translate that from Oddoese.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on March 06, 2012, 07:49:50 pm
I thought otto was mittens?  This is so gosh-darned confusing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 06, 2012, 07:50:47 pm
It's like trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with my 4 year old grand daughter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 06, 2012, 09:58:28 pm
Why does it cost $13,000 for an appendectomy in the US, but only $257 in India?

Mr. Klein takes a "study" of 9 private insurance companies and takes average of those numbers and compares them to public/private mixes in other countries to create a larger "price" for procedures in the US.  Even then it isn't clear that the same "procedures" are the same in this study.  If you would average in Medicare/Medicaid with those private insurance companies the "cost" in the US would fall a ton.  So the answer to your question Otto is take a flawed "study," make a cute graphic, count on people like Otto to not read the "study" or understand "cost" in a medical sense, rinse repeat.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on March 06, 2012, 10:31:07 pm
Jim Bob Walton had his appendix taken out for $27.00 in 1933.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on March 07, 2012, 12:56:26 am
“I don’t know how they declare that anything but a disappointment... I think the Romney people stick to this sort of new math that none of us are aware of. No matter what happens on a particular night, they have some convoluted way of saying that was a great night for them.”

-Santorum chief strategist John Brabender

Huh? Romney won Ohio, and by all accounts no jesmath was used.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 07, 2012, 04:53:54 am
Let's see here.  Romney won 6 states and 212 delegates.  Santorum won 3 and 84.  I have no idea why Romney would say that was a good night for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 07, 2012, 07:11:00 am
It was an OK night for Romney, but if he had won Tennessee, which he didn't come close to doing, he would have finished the deal.  The next few states favor Santorum and Gingrich, so Santorum could pick up a lot of momentum again if he wins those states, which he definitely will if Gingrich drops out.  It's also not going to look all that great for Romney if he finishes third in Alabama and Mississippi, which probably has a decent chance of happening.

He's still the favorite, but he's still failing to land a knockout blow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 07, 2012, 09:49:14 am
I think Romney might need to start seriously considering feeling out Santorum for the VP spot so he can get the primaries over with.  The math really doesn't add up for Santorum ever getting a majority of the delegates, so if Romney ever came to him with an offer, he'd have to seriously think about it.

Santorum would be less than an ideal VP for Romney, since he'll likely have to answer for some of the more controversial things Santorum will likely say on the campaign trail.  Still Santorum also does well with voters that Romney doesn't do well with, he'd give him a lot of credibility with evangelicals, he'd hold up well in a debate with Joe Biden, and it'd help put the party back together for November.  They campaigned a lot together in 2008, so they've worked well together before.  He wouldn't be the ideal VP candidate for him, but he'd bring a lot to the table too.

If I was advising Romney, I think that's what I'd tell him to do.   Romney isn't doing anything on the campaign trail to end this quickly, so I'd start looking at cutting a deal and getting this primary campaign over with so that he and the Republicans can start concentrating Obama instead of talking about a brokered convention.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 07, 2012, 10:36:09 am
I would like for Santorum to win the nomination, but in the very likely case that he does not, I certainly would not want him selected for vice president.

The vice presidential candidate has no value whatsoever, other than to bring in votes, and I think that Rubio will do much better in that area than Santorum will.  And on the off chance that Romney and Rubio should beat Obama, it would be a great item on Rubio's resume when the time comes to elect a real conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 07, 2012, 10:40:50 am
If I was advising Romney, I think that's what I'd tell him to do.

That might be a reason I would not expect Romney to call you for advice.

Santorum is very unlikely to get the nomination, and his voters are not going to vote for Obama over Romney, nor are they likely to head to a 3rd party candidate.

Paul voters, on the other hand, might well turn to a 3rd party (Libertarian Party) candidate, or, since so many of them are new voters, might stay home, or even vote for Obama, instead of Romney, unless Paul at least tacitly embraces Romney after the nomination.

A Romney/Paul ticket would likely do quite well in November, but it would not help set up a successor candidate after a Romney presidency.  If Romney finds a VP candidate who satisfies Paul enough to bring Paul on board, Romney would do wonders to help himself in the general election, far more so than picking Santorum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on March 07, 2012, 12:08:27 pm
Quote
I think Romney might need to start seriously considering feeling out Santorum for the VP spot

Eww.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 07, 2012, 10:11:36 pm
Romney is doing just fine.  He won twice the delegates of anyone else last night and 6 of ten.  I don't know how Santorum winning three is considered a split like Hannity tried to say today.  The math doesn't add up for anyone but Mitt now.  Santorum would have to win 64% of the remaining delegates to capture the nomination.  Gingrich 70%.  Not happening.  I predict the knockout blow will come next month when the NE states hold their primaries the same day and Mitt wins all of them including PA.  That will be it for sweater Vest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 08, 2012, 08:17:00 am
I predict the knockout blow will come next month when the NE states hold their primaries the same day and Mitt wins all of them including PA. 

In the meantime, though, the next month to month and a half is going to to be pretty rough for Romney. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2012, 09:10:36 am
Like training for a title fight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 08, 2012, 10:29:39 am
The southern primaries are all proportional.  Even if he loses every one of them he will still be closer to the nomination when those hit.  There are only 4 winner take all contests left and Mitt will be favored in every one of them.  While the southern primaries are going on the islands and territories will be voting as well and believe it or not Mitt will probably pick up more delegates in those contests than there were in OH.  Two polls came out today showing Mitt up in AL so he might not get swept in the south anyway. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 08, 2012, 10:30:41 am
Just saw TX has moved back up to April now from May.  Not a good state for Mitt but that will be the last of the south so he will dominate after that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 08, 2012, 10:33:52 am
To illustrate my point the islands including HI have 79 delegates up between now and the 18th.  Mitt will win most of those.  He will also take delegates from all the southern primaries even if he loses.  So he might lose all the southern big ones in March and still widen his delegate lead.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 08, 2012, 10:46:09 am
Yes Romney has the math on his side, but on style points, it's still not going to look good for him the next month-plus if he's losing to primaries to Santorum, which he'll likely be doing plenty of until April 24.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 08, 2012, 10:50:00 am
Quote
Two polls came out today showing Mitt up in AL so he might not get swept in the south anyway. 

If Mitt somehow wins Alabama, that would turn out to be a huge win, and it probably would be a big blow for Santorum.

I can't see that happening, though.  Tennessee's a more moderate state than Alabama, he had the governor campaigning for him, and Mitt still lost pretty decisively here.  If Mitt can't win in Tennessee, I really can't see how he wins Alabama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 08, 2012, 03:30:08 pm
I agree JR.  The polls showing Mitt ahead today are probably outliers.  What I did find interesting was that both polls had Santorum third.  Weird
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2012, 03:43:00 pm
I agree JR.  The polls showing Mitt ahead today are probably outliers.  What I did find interesting was that both polls had Santorum third.  Weird

If folks from Alabama have a choice between two candidates they view as having generally similar views (Santorum and Gingrich) and one is from the south and one is from the north, you are surprised that the one from the north finishes behind the one from the south?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 08, 2012, 05:35:42 pm
If folks from Alabama have a choice between two candidates they view as having generally similar views (Santorum and Gingrich) and one is from the south and one is from the north, you are surprised that the one from the north finishes behind the one from the south?

Well considering OK and TN yes, I am surprised.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2012, 06:03:39 pm
Oklahoma and TN are not quite as south at Alabama.  Neither on a map nor in the mindset.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 08, 2012, 09:45:36 pm
Ok whatever
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 09, 2012, 12:32:32 am
Oklahoma and TN are not quite as south at Alabama.  Neither on a map nor in the mindset.[/i]

You see, this is why I come here for information. I had no idea Mobile was south of Brownsville.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 09, 2012, 10:20:29 am
Good column on Romney today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293021/hire-me-rich-lowry
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 09, 2012, 11:08:13 am
Oklahoma and TN are not quite as south at Alabama.  Neither on a map nor in the mindset.[/i]

You see, this is why I come here for information. I had no idea Mobile was south of Brownsville.

Mobile is not south of Brownsville.

Of course, Brownsville is not in Oklahoma or TN.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 09, 2012, 11:09:34 am
Of course, Brownsville is not in Oklahoma or TN.

Oh yes it is.  I grew up about 10 miles from Brownsville, TN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_TN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_TN)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 09, 2012, 11:09:47 am
Mobile is not south of Brownsville.

Of course, Brownsville is not in Oklahoma or TN.

You see, THAT is why FDISK comes here for information.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 09, 2012, 11:15:37 am
Oh yes it is.  I grew up about 10 miles from Brownsville, TN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_TN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_TN)

But that Brownsville is NOT south of Mobile, unless, of course, you are talking about Mobile, Maine.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 09, 2012, 12:43:43 pm
My bad...I read it as Texas, not TN.

I'm sure glad I come here for information.  Lord knows I won't be able to depend on ol' Rush much longer...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 10, 2012, 08:02:34 pm
Robb, I might have been underestimating Romney's chances in the south after all.  Nate Silver has Romney at 69% chance to win Mississippi, although there have only been two polls there.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/mississippi (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/mississippi)

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/alabama (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/alabama)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 10, 2012, 08:12:18 pm
When the earth refuses to warm
By Wesley Pruden on January 31, 2012

Global warming: Been there, done that. Forward-looking folks are adjusting their fretting machinery now to something called Cycle 25. Button up your overcoats. Ice is on the way.

Global warming, which was mostly a scam invented by researchers looking for government grants, is over. The great warming phenomenon, which was supposed to have sent polar bears to vacation in Miami Beach by now, ended in 1997.

Britain’s Met Office, which tracks weather and makes forecasts, and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the source of much global warming research (some of it faked, some of it not), agree, according to the London Daily Mail, that Planet Earth could even be heading for an icy patch “to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the [frozen-over] Thames in the 17th century.” They call this Cycle 25.

The report of the findings in Old Blighty follows an op-ed essay in the Wall Street Journal, signed by 16 eminent scientists, including both physicists and other climate researchers, that the panic promoted over global warming is not now, and never has been, shared by “large numbers of scientists, many very prominent.”

The number of these “heretics” is growing, and “the reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.” The chief among these “stubborn scientific facts” is that the global warming scare was bunk from the beginning, promoted by high priests of the great god Science, not actual scientists in pursuit of secular knowledge. (Think Al Gore.)

“Why is there so much passion about global warming,” these 16 eminent scientists asked, “and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society . . . refused the seemingly reasonable request by so many of its members to remove the word ‘incontrovertible’ from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question of ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, ‘follow the money.’”

 

The rising temperatures which led some researchers to panic, like frightened teenage girls fretting over prom dates, actually began to subside when sunspot activity began to subside. According to this new research, sunspot numbers are less than half of those recorded during the cycle peaks when scientific hysteria was at its wildest at the end of the 20th century. The sun is moving now toward a “grand minimum” of sunspot activity, which would threaten cooler summers, colder winters and shorter growing seasons. It’s all part of the natural cycle of something the rest of us call “nature.”

Sunspots appear to be the villains. Since the sun is beyond the control of scientists, this makes their hair hurt and teeth itch. Scientists at the Met Office, which concedes that global warming has subsided, nevertheless argue still that the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide (or cow-made, since bovine flatulence has been cited as contributing to climate change). “Our findings,” says the Met Office, “suggest [that] a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.”

This frustrates cooler heads in the Church of Science. Says Henrik Svensmark, director of Denmark’s sun-climate research: “It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.

The Met Office, like most of the global warmist strongholds, relies on computer models for emanations of the penumbras of doom. These models did not foresee the pause in global warming, but the Met insists the models are still valid. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, regarded as one of the most eminent American climate scholars, finds the prediction of a “negligible” impact of sunspot activity on climate difficult to understand.

“The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,” she told the Mail. She thinks it more likely that the rising and falling of the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have more influence on climate than man-made carbon dioxide.

“If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015,” says Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “it will start to become clear that the models are bunk.” Heavy-breathing humans and flatulent cows will be off the hook, and a lot of scam artists will be pushed away from the public trough and on the street looking for work.

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 10, 2012, 10:01:21 pm
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.


Funding

Citing privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[13]

In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only Ł8,168 of the Ł503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."


80 wealthy dudes with money in the game of denial...Sounds like a good read...what page of the Norsk Sagas?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 10, 2012, 10:53:44 pm
If you can't refute the message, belittle the messenger.  The only way liberals can function.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 11, 2012, 01:05:32 am
Good use of irony, Dave.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 12, 2012, 11:46:26 am
If you can't refute the message, belittle the messenger.  The only way liberals can function.


At least he didn't call you a $lut.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 12, 2012, 11:49:46 am
Okay...so we have another!  I can't type the word "****". 

So now...just how am I suppose to refer to women on the pill?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 12, 2012, 11:56:22 am
trollop

hussy

bimbo

floozy

Jezebel

tramp

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 14, 2012, 11:46:21 am
ESPN and CBS really should request reimbursement from the Obama campaign for all the free campaign advertising they're giving him during the NCAA tournament.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on March 15, 2012, 07:52:28 am
It was really nice that Obahma could take the British Prime Minister out to a basketball game.

I wonder how much it cost the taxpayers to fly air force 1 , all the support vehichles and what it cost for all of the security for them to attend the game.

I wonder if his big screen and cable were out?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 15, 2012, 10:39:34 am
Santo, Bush and Reagan did things like this, too.  These are not the things to complain about.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on March 15, 2012, 10:50:49 am
Probably so. But I liked those guys. Lol
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 15, 2012, 10:55:35 am
Quote
Santo, Bush and Reagan did things like this, too. These are not the things to complain about.

Ron Santo was President of the United States?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 15, 2012, 10:56:34 am
If he wasn't, he should have been.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on March 15, 2012, 10:58:11 am
Santo would be doing a better job then :bama is doing now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 15, 2012, 11:01:13 am
lol
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2012, 12:08:09 pm
Santorum admits that it is one of the other candidates who is the "true conservative."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G106jlvZYmQ&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 15, 2012, 02:35:36 pm
Pass
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on March 15, 2012, 09:03:48 pm
Right...you libs don't pass...it's just puff, puff, puff...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 16, 2012, 07:16:03 pm
When you wingnuts go all palin, it's best to pass.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 16, 2012, 10:05:21 pm
Better than going all Obuma.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 17, 2012, 01:07:09 am
I always thought it was called "going Biden"  He has stuck his foot in his mouth much more than Palin.

And of course, someone "going Obuma" would probably say things like "I have been to 57 or 58 states".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 17, 2012, 07:50:08 am
I would say hiring a guy to run the Treasury who forgot to pay his taxes.  Or giving half a billion to a solar company your own people predicted would go bankrupt down to the month.  Or watching the citizenry of your enemy take to the streets to bring down their regime and saying nothing about it, not even a word of encouragement.  Or how about taking a country deeply in debt with a foundering economy and using back room deals and bribes to pass another huge entitlement.  Or how about going all over the world apologizing for our country.  Or possibly spending more time on golf courses, campaigning and Leno appearances than any President in history while the country tried to recover.  Or how about borrowing 787 billion to reboot the country and blowing it on public sector unions to pay off your supporters.  And finally how about this for going Obama,  calling George W. Bush unpatriotic for running up a $400 billion dollar deficit and then eclipsing that mark 3 to 4 times every year of his presidency.  I would say going Obama is a "little" worse than going Palin.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2012, 09:41:21 am
robb

Are you palin stupid or blingrinch self absorbed?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 17, 2012, 09:46:56 am
"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

--Sarah Palin, on Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on March 17, 2012, 12:15:52 pm
Nothing trumps not knowing how many damn states there are.

Nothing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2012, 12:21:23 pm
Nothing trumps not knowing how many damn states there are.

Nothing.

He mis-spoke.  I strongly dislike Obama and think he may easily go down as one of the worst presidents ever, but I give him a pass on that 2008 campaign comment.

Now, holding up Palin's Paul Revere comment for ridicule when in fact she was perfectly correct and historians have confirmed it.... THAT one is some prize stupidity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 17, 2012, 01:07:55 pm
Sounds like otto is smoking too many four leaf clovers this weekend.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 17, 2012, 06:47:32 pm
Now, holding up Palin's Paul Revere comment for ridicule when in fact she was perfectly correct and historians have confirmed it.... THAT one is some prize stupidity.

"Perfectly" correct?  I doubt whether Paul ever fired a gun or rang a bell that night. But her "explanation" was substantially correct and perfectly incoherent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: McScoop on March 17, 2012, 06:51:05 pm
He mis-spoke.  I strongly dislike Obama and think he may easily go down as one of the worst presidents ever, but I give him a pass on that 2008 campaign comment.

Then isn't it time to let up on FITS for the Puerto Rico thing?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2012, 09:13:24 pm
Then isn't it time to let up on FITS for the Puerto Rico thing?

No.  FITS had his error pointed out to him, and refused to acknowledge it, insisting that Puerto Rico should be considered a separate country.  He also has made clear in other posts that he will alter the rules whenever he sees fit.  Not just doing so, but also expressly stating so.

That FITS made a mistake never bothered me.  That fits insisted to STAND by his mistake after it was pointed out to him is what bothered.  Vastly different from simply mis-speaking when cameras are recording.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2012, 09:13:39 pm
Sure is nice to see the Republican Party conducting everything above board in the primary season this year....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g60TsnC9-u8
EVERYONE needs to see this. THIS is what is happening to the Ron Paul candidacy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 18, 2012, 07:06:43 am
robb

Are you palin stupid or blingrinch self absorbed?

Typical liberal. Can't argue the merits so you call names.  Look at my post Otto, have someone read and explain it to you and then refute 1, not the whole thing, just 1 of the statements.  I already know you can't but give it a try.  I don't blame those who fell for his rhetoric in 08.  He seemed to be a new kind of politician.  Then he started to govern. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 18, 2012, 08:06:56 am
Typical liberal. Can't argue the merits so you call names.

This really is not related to otto being liberal.  This is related to otto being otto.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 18, 2012, 09:03:23 am
No, Jes.  We're all name callers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 09:48:20 am
Trouble maker.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 18, 2012, 10:02:03 am
Anti-religion science geek.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 18, 2012, 10:04:41 am
Athwarts
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 10:05:38 am
Typical liberal. Can't argue the merits so you call names.

So in response you label all Liberals as equivalent to Otto. Talk about name calling.

At least he didn't call you a **** mongering, casino gambling, dick.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 10:06:50 am
Hey!   Look at that, now you can type the word "dick"!!


How can you possibly have a topic on politics and not be able to type Tricky Dick?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 10:13:26 am
Speaking of the word Liberal and it's many connotations.

Having read this topic for years, and taking in consideration the true meaning and context of the word Liberal, I think I can say with complete confidence that even the conservatives around here are Liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2012, 11:23:00 am
Sarah Palin's legacy is Mitt Romney's problem

When Samuel J. Wurzlebacher, AKA "Joe the Plumber," won a Republican nomination for Congress, Sarah Palin's transformation of the Republican electoral base was complete. What has happened to the GOP, much to the consternation of the elite party establishment, is that it has become a party of paranoid conspiracy freaks, religious kooks, bigots, the marginally insane, and amateur grifters like Joe the Plumber. If Palin were running in the primary election for president, there is no doubt that she would be winning it, probably handily. This, in a nutshell, is why Mitt Romney, the only plausibly qualified candidate running for president in the GOP, is having such a hard time winning what should be a cakewalk primary. This party is no longer the party of the country club or even of Ronald Reagan. This is a party unhinged from reality. This is the party of Palin.
 After Sarah Palin was first elevated to from obscure governor of less than 1 percent of the population, her influence over the party became abundantly clear. Other than Obama, nobody pulled larger crowds than her. She became the top small donor fundraiser in the Republican Party. She commanded the biggest speaking fees, sold the most books, and even won herself a top paid spot at Fox News. Her endorsement during the 2010 election cycle was the most coveted in the country. The media proclaimed her ability to "connect" with the most base desires of the GOP as unrivaled. Until Palin's infamous "blood libel" video permanently damaged her as a national candidate, she represented everything the GOP base wants in an American leader: White, not too smart, against modernity, an ability to ignore inconsistency, a devotion to megachurchdom, hostility to metropolitan areas, and hateful of anyone not like themselves. The fact that she was woefully unprepared to take on the responsibilities of being president was irrelevant. The Republican right doesn't want a president. They want a televangelist.
 
While many of us incorrectly predicted a Palin run for the presidency, her imprint on the primary has been obvious. At every turn, Republican primary voters have spoken loud and clear: they want someone who can beat Barack Obama, but they want that person to be as unqualified to be president as possible. While the establishment has decided that Mitt Romney offers their best shot at accomplishing that goal, even they have taken note of just how far right their base has gone. In any other era, the current version of Mitt Romney would have been considered a far right ideologue far outside the American mainstream. The current version of Romney is considered a moderate not simply because of his previous positions, but because the party base has moved far beyond Reagan conservatism and turned into a radical hate group writ large. If it wasn't for Palin's imprint on the party base, this election would look far more favorable for any Republican challenger.
 
Each of the now defunct presidential candidates has tried to take her place this year. Each of them failed. Michele Bachmann tried to fill her space with her own brand of crazy, but she literally didn't hunt. Perhaps she needed to air advertisements of herself firing a fully automatic rifle. Then Rick Perry moved in to take up the Palin banner, but he didn't hate brown people sufficiently. Then Herman Cain, who prominently endorsed Joe the Plumber, flew the Palin banner high. But he too had a problem: being a Black man sexually interested in White women, which is how we got Obama in the first place. (Sex scandals don't usually bother Republicans. Ask David Vitter. It is only a crime when Democrats do it.) Finally there was Newt, who seemed perfect at first look. Here was a guy who was a noted liar, an accomplished grifter, and a moral disgrace. While Newt could have certainly represent the values of the Palin Party, he has one tiny flaw: Newt is the most disliked human being in America. Even Palin's endorsement can't overcome that. So what's left is Santorum. Literally. A political nincompoop who can't even get basic things done like getting on the ballot.
 
Rush Limbaugh, the intellectual leader of the party since William F. Buckley's death, has openly proclaimed Palin the leader of the Republican Party. She knows nothing, hates everyone, and is in politics purely for financial gain just like himself. The Palin Party does not want Mitt Romney. For while Palin and Romney are both ambitious to a fault, Romney's ambition is of a different variety. Romney couldn't care less about minorities, gays, women, city and suburb dwellers, immigrants, or any of the other "others" that the Palin Party despises. Mitt Romney couldn't care less about religion, including his own. That's why he doesn't like talking about it honestly in public. Mitt Romney cares about one thing and one thing only: that the top one percent stay on top and become even more top. That's a problem for the Palin Party because they believe they should be on top by virtue of being better than everyone else ... by being "real Americans" rather than rich Americans. No matter what Mitt Romney does, the most he can hope for is that the Palin Party will tolerate him because they hate the alternative more. After all, as bad as Mitt Romney is, he's still a white man. In the Palin Party, that counts for a lot. But his Palin problem will still be there.
 
In the end, Palin's legacy will fade away as quickly as it came about. Her party is an aging, shrinking, dying demographic of rural White men. Many of the Republican party's luminaries understand this. Likely sooner than later, the GOP establishment will come to grips with the idea that if they are to survive as a political institution they will have to jettison the nutcase fringe. The reckoning will come, as the American political system tends to correct anomalies over time. But first, they'll have to blow an election that should have been easy as apple pie. For that, Mitt Romney can thank Sarah Palin.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 18, 2012, 11:26:13 am
Speaking of the word Liberal and it's many connotations.

Having read this topic for years, and taking in consideration the true meaning and context of the word Liberal, I think I can say with complete confidence that even the conservatives around here are Liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism



True.  I think you could also say with complete confidence that even those that consider themselves liberal around here are not liberal.

Definitions tend to change over time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 18, 2012, 11:30:04 am
Ok robb

I'll take presidential vacations days for 50.

Question is..."Or possibly spending more time on golf courses, campaigning and Leno appearances than any President in history while the country tried to recover."
 
Answer is

http://factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/ (http://factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/)

Now are you palin stupid or blingrinch self-absorbed?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 12:15:59 pm
Definitions tend to change over time.

Very true, that's why name calling can become very tricky.

By the way, I had a dream about you last night.  You called me up to ask me how to prevent "Chastity" from spamming your email account with lascivious requests. I think I told you to change your email address...or to relax and enjoy the compliment...one or the other, can't remember.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 12:33:47 pm
http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

The granddaddy of all Liberalism. Good read, believe it or not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 12:43:14 pm
XXIII

There is a great difference between the Idols of the human mind and the Ideas of the divine. That is to say, between certain empty dogmas, and the true signatures and marks set upon the works of creation as they are found in nature.


Francis Bacon wouldn't last long around here...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 18, 2012, 12:47:10 pm
Yeah, Bacon would get fried.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 18, 2012, 12:47:27 pm
I beat P2 tuit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 12:48:31 pm
XXVI

The conclusions of human reason as ordinarily applied in matters of nature, I call for the sake of distinction Anticipations of Nature (as a thing rash or premature). That reason which is elicited from facts by a just and methodical process, I call Interpretation of Nature.


I would say Global Warming falls under Anticipations of Nature.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 12:50:40 pm
XXVII

Anticipations are a ground sufficiently firm for consent, for even if men went mad all after the same fashion, they might agree one with another well enough.


A possible explanation for why Al Gore received a Nobel...as well as for the certainty of the Anti-Global Warmists.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 01:02:03 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/science/einstein-proved-right-in-retest-of-neutrinos-speed.html

Frickin scientists...why can't they get it right? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 18, 2012, 01:05:10 pm
“These results are in line with our recent findings about the possible misfunctioning of some of the components of our experimental setup,” he said.

Faulty stopwatch.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 01:14:18 pm
I guess that's why science has those pesky little things like "reproducible results" and "peer review".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 01:16:36 pm
Probably would have been cheaper for CERN to just accept the first results, prove Einstein wrong, and move on to undiscovering something else.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 18, 2012, 01:40:10 pm
I guess that's why science has those pesky little things like "reproducible results" and "peer review".

Yes.  Things which are absent with the Global Warming alarmism.

And missing in much of the alarmist crap is that throughout human history, warming in the range forecast has actually been a net positive for mankind.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 18, 2012, 01:41:20 pm
I would say Global Warming falls under Anticipations of Nature.

I would say it falls under the category of a bunkum scam.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 02:06:07 pm
Yes.  Things which are absent with the Global Warming alarmism.

As well as in the anti-Global Warming alarmism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 02:23:47 pm
There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.

Fran
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 18, 2012, 02:32:46 pm
Tarkington?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 18, 2012, 02:35:45 pm
Kukla?  Ollie?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 18, 2012, 02:38:46 pm
Definitions tend to change over time.

Very true, that's why name calling can become very tricky.

By the way, I had a dream about you last night.  You called me up to ask me how to prevent "Chastity" from spamming your email account with lascivious requests. I think I told you to change your email address...or to relax and enjoy the compliment...one or the other, can't remember.

I probably changed my Email account as you recommended.  I have never been in favor of Chastity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 18, 2012, 02:42:39 pm
Yes.  Things which are absent with the Global Warming alarmism.

As well as in the anti-Global Warming alarmism.

Were those that told Chicken Little that the sky WASN'T falling, alarmists?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 18, 2012, 02:59:01 pm
Chicken Little didn't have Al Gore on his side.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on March 19, 2012, 12:27:48 pm
This is pretty funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KRP6-f7OY&feature=relmfu
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 21, 2012, 11:01:02 am
Jeb Bush just endorsed Romney.

Just one more reason to worry about what kind of president Romney would be.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on March 22, 2012, 05:06:55 am
Why exactly is that?  Is a candidate responsible for who endorses him? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 22, 2012, 07:44:29 am
At least now there is a case, and an attorney handling that case, which offers a good opportunity and a good prospect of actually addressing the issues.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/klayman-files-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-placement-on-florida-presidential-ballot-143457686.html

     Klayman Files Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Placement on Florida Presidential Ballot

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla., March 20, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch and before that Judicial Watch, announced filing a lawsuit in his personal legal capacity challenging the placement of Barack Hussein Obama on the Florida General Election Ballot.  The plaintiff is registered Democrat Michael Voeltz.

    Klayman filed this lawsuit against Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner to require Detzner, Florida's chief election official, to confirm the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama before placing his name on the ballot.

     Klayman said the U.S. Constitution mandates a president must be a "natural born citizen"  born to two U.S. citizens. Neither Mr. Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida, nor any other group has confirmed that Mr. Obama is a "natural born citizen" since his father was a British subject born in Kenya and not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, according to Klayman, Mr. Obama is ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States until the state can confirm his eligibility.

    The Florida Election Code enables any voter or taxpayer to challenge any candidate who is ineligible for public office in theLeon County courts. If the Secretary of State cannot confirm Mr. Obama's eligibility then  Klayman is demanding the Court to grant an injunction preventing Mr. Obama's name from appearing on the Florida General Election Ballot in 2012.

     Klayman, who was a former U.S. Senate candidate in Florida during the 2004 election cycle, is familiar with election laws.  While at Judicial Watch, Mr. Klayman also appeared on behalf of the public in the famous case of Gore v. Bush, before Judge N. Sanders Sauls in Leon County.  He was the first to have Florida courts order the 2000 presidential ballots opened for public scrutiny.

     "The requirement for natural born citizenship, which is found in the U.S. Constitution, was intended to prevent foreign influences from 'influencing' an American president. These 'influences' have regrettably been witnessed by the American people during President Obama's term in office.  It is clear the Founding Fathers intended to avoid such a situation, where an American president seems to frequently sympathize with and take actions benefitting foreign interests," said Klayman.

     For more information or interview contact Adrienne Mazzone of Transmedia Group at 561-750-9800 x210 or emailamazzone@transmediagroup.com. The case is titled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Case No.: 2012CA00467) and is filed in Leon County Superior Court.

As I have indicated before, I don't take a position on whether Obama does or doesn't meet the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement.  I simply believe it is an interesting legal issue, and practically speaking an extremely important issue.

Interesting also to wonder what would happen if the case develops anything resembling traction, perhaps with a trial court order removing Obama from the ballot in FL, with that order almost certainly stayed pending further appeal, appeals which would not likely be concluded by the time of the Democratic nominating convention.  Might that be enought to get Obama to remove Biden from the ticket to replace Biden with Hilary?

Voters who might be concerned about the prospect of Obama being found ineligible might well be more comfortable with the idea of Hilary replacing Obama than Biden replacing Obama.  Then there is the issue of how such a move would be addressed.... in the minds of voters, addressing it openly might actually give more credence to the challenge, which might cause some voters to turn from Obama.... and might cause many others to turn TO Obama as his supporters loudly played the race card, proclaiming that this was all a result of racists attacking Obama because he is black, and who would attack him and smear him and make up claims and legal theories to remove him no matter what, all because he is black (or at least perceived as being black).

Much as I would like to see the issues addressed, my concern remains that a credible legal challenge to Obama's eligibility, getting considerable news coverage, and which is still underway at the time of the election, is the only way Obama has a chance to get re-elected.

It will rally his base more than anything else could, and will push many white independents who are truly offended by racism to vote (again) for Obama in order to prove (again) that they are not racists, voting more for Obama out of disgust at what they would consider the racism of Obama's opponents than they would be voting for Obama based on any real issues or support for his performance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 22, 2012, 01:51:14 pm
Wow, a ron paul birther sighting.

A rare and wonderfully incomplete strange bird.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on March 22, 2012, 02:07:54 pm
Wow, a ron paul birther sighting.

A rare and wonderfully incomplete strange bird.
Otto, Here's something you'll get a kick out of:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County (Phoenix) is now going after the Selective Service demanding that they provide a copy of Barack Obama's draft card.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 22, 2012, 02:19:37 pm
Otto, Here's something you'll get a kick out of:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County (Phoenix) is now going after the Selective Service demanding that they provide a copy of Barack Obama's draft card.

The one question which I have not seen anyone ask Arpaio is what criminal offense he believes was committed IN MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ,  that he is investigating.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on March 30, 2012, 01:18:08 pm
Pretty much any time the media narrative focuses on issues like George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin and contraception and not on the economy and deficits, it's a win for Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 30, 2012, 03:20:00 pm
Pretty much any time the media narrative focuses on issues like George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin and contraception and not on the economy and deficits, it's a win for Obama.

For the most part, yes.

I am still not sure that is true with the Zimmerman case.

If Hispanics as a group come to identify with Zimmerman, and see Obama's comments, and his decision to direct the Justice Department to get involved, as somehow targeting the Hispanic community, it could end up biting him in the azz in a big, big way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:20:46 pm
Why would Obama have a draft card?

I'm three years older than the President, I don't have a draft card. I remember there was a period when they reinstituted registering for the draft...but I can't remember when that was. Certainly I didn't have to, having turned 18 immediately after Vietnam War...during a time when there was strong pressure to eliminate the draft.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:23:57 pm
Pretty much any time the media narrative focuses on issues like George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin and contraception and not on the economy and deficits, it's a win for Obama.

Then Obama will win hands down. Because the media isn't interested in the boring REAL problems, they would much rather sell commercials.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:25:31 pm
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:37:05 pm
Here is an interesting document you will probably never see on CNN or Fox....

http://crfb.org/document/primary-numbers-gop-candidates-and-national-debt
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:37:43 pm
Page 14

Speaker Gingrich has proposed a detailed set of policy reforms that would decrease both spending and
taxes. We estimate that, taken together, these proposals would increase deficits by $7.0 trillion through
2021 under our intermediate projections, resulting in 2021 debt levels at about 114 percent of GDP. Under
our more optimistic “low-debt” scenario, we estimate Speaker Gingrich’s policies would increase deficits
by $2.8 trillion (bringing debt to 97 percent of GDP); and under our more pessimistic “high-debt” scenario
they would increase deficits by $9.7 trillion (bringing debt to 126 percent of GDP).1
[/b]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:38:34 pm
Page 19

Congressman Paul has proposed a detailed set of reductions in spending, tax cuts, and other changes to
the size and scope of government. We estimate that, taken together, these proposals would reduce deficits
by $2.2 trillion, resulting in 2021 debt levels at about 76 percent of GDP in our intermediate-debt scenario.
Under our more optimistic “low-debt” scenario, we estimate Congressman Paul would reduce the debt by
$4.3 trillion through 2021 and bring debt down to 67 percent of GDP – however a larger portion of this debt
reduction is a result of Paul’s policy to cancel all federal debt held by the Federal Reserve System. Finally,
under our more pessimistic “high-debt” scenario, Paul’s policies would increase debt by $1.9 trillion (up to
93 percent of GDP) through 2021.28
[/b]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:40:08 pm
and from the guy who actually WILL run for President...page 25

Governor Romney has proposed a detailed set of policy reforms that would decrease both spending as well
as taxes. In total, we estimate the sum of his proposals would increase deficits by $250 billion through 2021
under our intermediate projections, resulting in 2021 debt levels at about 86 percent of GDP. Under our
more optimistic “low-debt” scenario, Governor Romney’s policies would reduce deficits by $2.2 trillion
(bringing debt to 75 percent of GDP); and under our more pessimistic “high-debt” scenario they would
increase deficits by $2.2 trillion (bringing debt to 94 percent of GDP).61
[/b]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:41:14 pm
page 30

Senator Santorum has proposed a detailed set of policy reforms that would decrease taxes and spending. In
total, we estimate the sum of his proposals would increase deficits by $4.5 trillion through 2021 under our
intermediate-debt projections, resulting in 2021 debt levels at about 104 percent of GDP. Under our more
optimistic “low-debt” scenario, Senator Santorum’s policies would reduce deficits by $2.6 trillion (bringing
debt to 74 percent of GDP); and under our more pessimistic “high-debt” scenario they would increase
deficits by $5.3 trillion (bringing debt to 107 percent of GDP).89
[/b]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 01:48:50 pm
So...there you have it...in an ideal world where Presidents get the budget they want, and where the worst won't happen, the difference between Santorum and Romney in deficit spending, as percentage of GDP, is ONE percent. Both plans still leave this country with debt over 70% of GDP by 2021.

I don't know about any of you...but if the best I could hope for with my personal finances was to have debt 75% of my net worth by 2021 I'd quit my job now and start robbing banks.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 01, 2012, 02:20:30 pm
I agree.  The choices we have from both parties are terrible, when it comes to reducing the debt.

It can not be done without a complete overhaul of both medicare and social security, and no none in either party is willing to advocate that, because the voters, spurred on by every portion of the media, do not want either of them touched.

So all we are left with is the choice between a fast economic death or a slightly slower economic death.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 02:59:16 pm
Or we could hold out hope for "statesmanship", which I guess is the art of ignoring popular opinion.  Perhaps after the election when all those lame ducks will be waddling around.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2012, 03:12:35 pm
Why would Obama have a draft card?

I'm three years older than the President, I don't have a draft card. I remember there was a period when they reinstituted registering for the draft...but I can't remember when that was. Certainly I didn't have to, having turned 18 immediately after Vietnam War...during a time when there was strong pressure to eliminate the draft.

Because at the time Obama turned 18, 18-year-olds were required to register for the draft.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 04:25:15 pm
I think Obama was born in 1961.  The registration requirement was suspended in 1975 and resumed in 1980.  In 1980 Obama would have been 19 years-old. I assume that Obama being over 18 (like me) was not required to register because his 18th birthday had passed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 04:40:46 pm
It's all coming back to me now.  You have 30 days within the date of your 18th birthday to register.  For a five year period there was no registration requirement.  Consequently people who turned 18 during the five year period did not have to register, and therefore wouldn't have a draft card. Obama turned 18 on August 4, 1979, which means his 18th birthday fell within the five year period. Therefore no requirement to register.

This was an oft-discussed loophole in my family. I have one brother who turned 18 before 1975 (and was drafted) and another brother born after 1980.  Both had to register, I didn't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 01, 2012, 04:52:05 pm
It's all coming back to me now.  You have 30 days within the date of your 18th birthday to register.  For a five year period there was no registration requirement.  Consequently people who turned 18 during the five year period did not have to register, and therefore wouldn't have a draft card. Obama turned 18 on August 4, 1979, which means his 18th birthday fell within the five year period. Therefore no requirement to register.

It came back to you wrong.  Under the law at the time, Obama was required to register.  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/04771.html

(Of course, I was also required to register, back in 1973, and refused to do so.  At that time I actually expected to be prosecuted and sent to prison for it.  Nixon at that time had given up on such things, because by 1973, I was a long way from alone.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on April 01, 2012, 04:59:23 pm
1-101. Male citizens of the United States and other males residing in the United States, unless exempted by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended, who were born on or after January 1, 1960, and who have attained their eighteenth birthday, shall present themselves for registration in the manner and at the time and places as hereinafter provided.

Cool!  The loophole is even smaller than I thought!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 03, 2012, 07:15:59 am
I hope Santorum isn't serious about this.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANTORUM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-02-14-14-40
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 03, 2012, 08:22:43 am
Everything you have ever seen or heard about Santorum would suggest that he is serious.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 04, 2012, 10:42:23 am
The appeals court has directed the executive branch to prepare and submit their views on Judicial Review.  Holder has said he will comply.

Is this within the ability of the Courts to require?  Could the JD have refused, claiming Executive Privilege or something else?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 11:40:19 am
The DOJ could have refused, and then the Court COULD have issued an Order to Show Cause, to explain why the Court should not find in contempt of court whomever it ordered to do as it did, and since the order was that the DOJ explain whether the federal courts have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of federal law, with that order made in light of the president's comments jsut a day or two before, the order actually seems reasonable.  Ballzy, but reasonable.  Certainly the DOJ could claim whatever it wished, but this would be an institutional conflict Obama really would not want to wage (Gingrinch might if he were prez, but not sane folks), and because of the nature of the question, it is one that seems appropriate and one where the administration would not find much sympathy on the bench.  Since the order is from the Court of Appeals, the only place for the administration to challenge it would be to the entire panel of the Court of Appeals by asking for an en banc ruling, or by appealing to the Supreme Court, and either way you would have a bunch of folks sitting there looking at the real question being that of whether the White House is challenging the role of the federal judiciary in ruling on the constitutionality of federal law.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 04, 2012, 12:06:48 pm
What a totally embarrassing judicial order. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 12:07:22 pm
What a totally embarrassing judicial order. 

Embarrassing to whom?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 04, 2012, 12:08:12 pm
To the panel that issued it.  Judicial thuggery.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 04, 2012, 12:11:36 pm
East, what is the issue?  I'm missing something.  Did the DOJ threaten not to obey an Appeals Court ruling or something?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 04, 2012, 12:25:26 pm
No, Curt.  A Fifth Circuit judge on a panel entertaining another challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA asked the government lawyer appearing before him whether the panel should construe Obama's remarks expressing confidence that Scotus would uphold the ACA as suggesting that it is the President's position that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional.  In other words, the Judge is asking whether the Obama administration is challenging the correctness of the holding in Marbury v. Madison.  Then, when the government attorney immediately replies that, no, obviously, that is not how the President's remarks should be construed, the panel is unwilling to let its grandstanding go at that.  Instead, it orders a submission from DOJ on the issue.  I worked for 17 years in the federal courts -- for 6 different federal judges, conservatives and liberals, Republican appointees and Democratic appointees, and I don't know one judge who would describe what the panel did as anything other than an embarrassment.

The whole episode does nothing but fuel the perception that judicial opposition to the ACA is nothing more than partisan politics posing in the guise of judicial construction.  IMO.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 01:05:14 pm
To the panel that issued it.  Judicial thuggery.

Oh, I could not disagree more.  As I said, I think it was ballzy, but not embarrassing by any stretch of the imagination.

Based on Obama's comments, it was a perfectly reasonable question.

whether the panel should construe Obama's remarks expressing confidence that Scotus would uphold the ACA....

Except that was not all Obama said.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/02/joint-press-conference-president-obama-president-calderon-mexico-and-pri
Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.  And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example.  And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

It is a simple question as to exactly what the president meant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on April 04, 2012, 02:16:42 pm
Right, because Obama's remarks on the matter aren't at all out of line or out of keeping with precedent, etc. His actions to try and falsely define judicial activism are entirely appropriate.

Not condoning the grandstanding by the judge, but I can see it as the judiciary telling the executive to "stay the hell off my lawn," so to speak. I think that's a fair reaction, given Obama's behavior towards the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 02:22:37 pm
Grandstanding?

The court made its request in the ordinary course of the litigation before it, and not during a state of the union address or during a scheduled Rose Garden event with reporters and cameras on hand to take down every word.

I agree there was grandstanding.  I might disagree on who was doing it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 04, 2012, 03:45:03 pm
Because Republican presidents and presidential candidates have never expressed disagreement or suggested overreaching/abuse of judicial power when the Court invokes an unenumerated right to strike down the work of legislatures.  Obama really has strayed into uncharted territory here.  LOL!

Look, I'm not saying Obama should or should not have said anything.  But politicians taking potshots at the Court is nothing new -- by either side.  Hell, Gingrich has been campaigning on a promise of having federal marshals arrest activist judges and bring them to the well of Congress!  What is new is the ridiculous reaction by the court and the transparently disingenous refusal to accept a government attorney's stipulation that would have been accepted -- no, which never even would have been asked for -- in any other context.

Let's change the scenario a little.  Suppose that, after the Supreme Court argument over the constitutionality of the federal "Partial Birth" Abortion statute enacted in 2003, President Bush (whose Solicitor General defended the constitutionality of this "unprecedented" congressional intrusion into the regulatory prerogative of the States against claims that the statute infringed an unenumerated constitutional right), had said at a press conference that he was confident that the law would be upheld and that striking it down would amount to unwarranted judicial activism on the basis of a right that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.  Yawn.  Nobody would have batted an eye.  Now, imagine that a Ninth Circuit panel had responded to that remark by doing what the Fifth Circuit did here -- i.e., refusing to accept a government lawyer's "clarification" that, no, the President had not repudiated Marbury v. Madison in the remarks at his press conference.  Yeah, I'm sure that Drudge, and Rush and the boys would have been perfectly OK with an unprecedented request from the Ninth Circuit that the Justice Department "clarify" whether the President still recognizes the principle of judicial review established in Marbury.

Every Republican President and presidential candidate since Reagan has taken the position that Roe v. Wade was unwarranted, policy-driven judicial activism that illegitimately unwound the will of the people as expressed by their legislatures.  What Obama said is essentially the same thing, only he said that he didn't think the Court would rule against him because doing so would be unwarranted policy-driven judicial activism that would unwind the will of the people as expressed through Congress.  Whether wise or not, the remark is an innocuous and banal statement that differs in neither kind nor degree from the position taken by the Administration in the briefing before the Court.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 04, 2012, 04:27:54 pm
East - when I heard what the judge did, it did not seem right to me because it seemed that he was over reaching his authority in requesting the Justice Department respond in court to a political view.

However, Obama did not exactly say that he was against "activist judges".  Specifically, he said "Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. "

That sounds to me like he was saying that the courts had no right, whatsoever, to overturn a law passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. "

He may not have meant it, but that was a strange thing for a "Constitutional Scholar" to say.  Did he feel that the Court should not have overturned all the anti abortion laws passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. "

My only point was, the courts should have waited until he actually acted on his views, rather than merely expressing an opinion.  Should the law be overturned by the Courts, and should Obama then refuse to enforce the overturning (not sure how he would do that) THAT would be the time for the Courts to take some sort of action.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 04, 2012, 04:41:47 pm
I think the irony here is that every law that the courts have declared unconstitutional were passed by some democratically elected assembly somewhere and some by huge margins.  I recall a Colorado law regarding homosexual something or other that passed by a huge margin in an initiative was still doa to the the courts.   So, why is it unthinkable that the courts could rule this one so?  The size of the majority isn't as important as whether or not it's constitutional, right?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 04, 2012, 04:43:28 pm
The size of the majority isn't as important as whether or not it's constitutional, right?

Every girl I ever knew made a point of telling me that size doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 04, 2012, 04:44:22 pm
Every girl I ever knew made a point of telling me that size doesn't matter.

That was so you would stop crying.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 04, 2012, 04:51:10 pm
That's why, in context, his remarks clearly meant that it would be unprecedented to do so under these circumstances -- which is precisely what most scholars (including Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried and conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec) have been saying.  You can agree or disagree, of course.  Moreover, you can fairly say that Obama should not have done this, and that Presidents ought to keep their mouths shut and respect judicial prerogative -- at least until it has been abused.  My only point is that, to an insider with an appreciation of context and of constitutional law such as Judge Smith, there was no ambiguity.  There is exactly a 0% chance that he actually understood Obama to be saying that the Court lacks the power to strike down the ACA.  And this is revealed by the ridiculous refusal to accept the government lawyer's clarification that the President was indeed not rejecting Marbury v. Madison in a single sentence in a press conference, that wrested from context, could be so misunderstood by the uninitiated.  There is simply no plausible explanation for the Fifth Circuit's order other than an attempt to pick a public fight with the President.  And it has always been understood (for very good reason) that judges don't do that.  Judge Jones and his co-panelists have revealed themselves as third-rate partisan hacks.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on April 04, 2012, 05:00:17 pm
Thanks for clarifying, ECF.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 05:03:31 pm
Let's change the scenario a little.  Suppose that, after the Supreme Court argument over the constitutionality of the federal "Partial Birth" Abortion statute enacted in 2003, President Bush (whose Solicitor General defended the constitutionality of this "unprecedented" congressional intrusion into the regulatory prerogative of the States against claims that the statute infringed an unenumerated constitutional right), had said at a press conference that he was confident that the law would be upheld and that striking it down would amount to unwarranted judicial activism on the basis of a right that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.  Yawn.  Nobody would have batted an eye.  Now, imagine that a Ninth Circuit panel had responded to that remark by doing what the Fifth Circuit did here -- i.e., refusing to accept a government lawyer's "clarification" that, no, the President had not repudiated Marbury v. Madison in the remarks at his press conference.

Wonderful strawman argument.  Now, let's deal with reality.

We have a president who has had his administration ignore prior federal court orders, specifically related to the administration's illegal over-reaction to the BP spill and its refusal to honor the statutory permit process for drilling permits, and who now suggests that he does not believe the federal courts even have the authority to strike down ObamaCare.

You and I obviously disagree on Judge Smith's order.  I consider it ballzy, but considering the circumstances it also seems reasonable, though the call for a "3 page single space" response to his question is a bit petty.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 04, 2012, 06:02:38 pm
What court orders did Obama ignore.  I was not aware of any.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 06:10:50 pm
One of the first things Obama did after the BP spill was to recall recently issued drilling permits which had not already been put to use and to refuse to act on any pending applications, and I believe he also ordered some rigs to suspend operation.  All of this violated federal law, with the administration action without authorization to do some of what it was doing and to violate or ignore the permitting process set up by statute.  Drilling companies filed suit and a federal judge issued a TRO, which the White House ignored.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 06:33:44 pm
dave, here is a news report in it.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html

U.S. in Contempt Over Gulf Drill Ban, Judge Rules
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins - Feb 3, 2011 2:53 PM ET

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.
Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.
“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.
President Barack Obama’s administration first halted offshore exploration in waters deeper than 500 feet in May, after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off the Louisiana coast led to a subsea blowout of a BP Plc well that spewed more than 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Overly Broad
Feldman overturned the initial ban as overly broad on June 22, after the offshore-drilling industry and Gulf Coast political and business leaders challenged it. U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar said later that day that he would “issue a new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities.”
In July, Salazar instituted a second drilling moratorium that was also challenged by an industry lawsuit claiming the ban was harming the Gulf Coast economy, which is heavily dependent on deepwater drilling activities. That ban was rescinded in October, before Feldman could rule on its validity.
Feldman later ruled that enhanced drilling safety rules Salazar imposed to permit companies to resume offshore exploration violated federal law, and he struck down those as well. Opponents of those rules complained to Feldman that regulators were continuing to block the resumption of drilling after Feldman’s rulings.
Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman, said the government is reviewing yesterday’s ruling. He declined to comment further.
Informal Moratorium
The Offshore Marine Service Association, a group representing offshore service vessels and shipyards, urged the president to end what it called an informal moratorium on offshore drilling.
“President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months,” Jim Adams, the association’s president, said in a release after the ruling. “As a result, thousands of workers are out of jobs, Americans are paying more for gasoline and heating oil, and our nation is becoming even more dependent on unstable nations for our energy needs.”
Feldman also ordered the government to pay the legal fees of Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, which filed the initial lawsuit. The company had described the fees as “significant.”
Hornbeck “was put to considerable expense, after Judge Feldman issued the injunction, contending with the government’s litigation posturing and defiance of the court’s order,” Sam Giberga, the company’s general counsel, said today in an e-mail.
“The government was not at liberty to impose its own will after the court struck down the policy,” Giberga said. “The government, like any citizen, had to obey the ruling, even if it didn’t like it.”
The case is Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, 2:10-cv-01663, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 04, 2012, 07:53:47 pm
As a legal matter, what recourse did the judge have at that point?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on April 04, 2012, 07:57:48 pm
No chance to impeach Obahma over this is there?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 09:08:27 pm
As a legal matter, what recourse did the judge have at that point?

Which judge at which point?

Feldman, where he found the government in contempt?

Not much he could do.  Remember the immortal words of Andrew Jackson, as president, who just learned that the Supreme Court agreed with the Cherokee that the federal government had no legal authority to remove them from their land in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama and that under the treaty between the Cherokee and the federal government the Cherokee had every right to remain where they were.  Jackson said, "Justice Marshall has rendered his opinion, now let's see him enforce it."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 09:09:39 pm
No chance to impeach Obahma over this is there?

Santo, I would offer an opinion there, but I'm sure you wouldn't want the opinion of a disbarred attorney on anything remotely related to the law.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 09:11:26 pm
dave, I just found a relevant quote:

The leading feature of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary of each other; and none are more jealous of this than the Judiciary. But would the Executive be independent of the Judiciary if he were subject to the commands of the latter, and to imprisonment for disobedience; if the smaller courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south and east to west, and withdraw him entirely from his executive duties?

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to George Hay during the trial of Aaron Burr
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on April 04, 2012, 10:11:59 pm
I was just trying to be humous and hopefull. Nothing was meant your direction. Lighten up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 04, 2012, 11:17:54 pm
I was just trying to be humous and hopefull. Nothing was meant your direction. Lighten up.

You have so far posted 115 times.

18 of those would qualify as personal digs at me.  Not criticism of what I had posted, but personal digs at me.  I believe at least 5 about my disbarment.

Excuse me if I wouldn't p*ss on you if you were on fire.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on April 05, 2012, 01:52:26 am
That's why, in context, his remarks clearly meant that it would be unprecedented to do so under these circumstances -- which is precisely what most scholars (including Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried and conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec) have been saying.  You can agree or disagree, of course.  Moreover, you can fairly say that Obama should not have done this, and that Presidents ought to keep their mouths shut and respect judicial prerogative -- at least until it has been abused.  My only point is that, to an insider with an appreciation of context and of constitutional law such as Judge Smith, there was no ambiguity.  There is exactly a 0% chance that he actually understood Obama to be saying that the Court lacks the power to strike down the ACA.  And this is revealed by the ridiculous refusal to accept the government lawyer's clarification that the President was indeed not rejecting Marbury v. Madison in a single sentence in a press conference, that wrested from context, could be so misunderstood by the uninitiated.  There is simply no plausible explanation for the Fifth Circuit's order other than an attempt to pick a public fight with the President.  And it has always been understood (for very good reason) that judges don't do that.  Judge Jones and his co-panelists have revealed themselves as third-rate partisan hacks.

ECF, what's the specific context here that would make overturning ACA unprecedented?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2012, 07:40:48 am
ECF, what's the specific context here that would make overturning ACA unprecedented?

~sigh~ Because it would be the first time the biggest piece of federal legislation signed into law by a black president would be found unconstitutional.

It would obviously be an act of racial profiling by radicalrightwingrepublican justices if they found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

And even the threat of that possibility is holding the economy back right now.  If the radicalrightwingrepublican justices hijack the Democratic process by actually striking down that historic piece of legislation, not only would the economy likely go into a tailspin, but the sun would likely stop rising in the morning and the rains will no longer fall.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 05, 2012, 08:08:27 am
I'm still a little lost, myself, East...

I realize that sometimes the actions of one of the branches, even the judicial, can come under review by the courts, but when it comes to laws and such, weren't all of them passed by a legislative body or by initiative somewhere, either federal, state, or local?  So when a law is declared unconstitutional, it overturns the will of the majority somewhere.  I was always taught that it protected the rights of the minority...to a degree.

So, I would see Obama's words as posturing in the sense that he's trash talking, trying to get inside the heads of the justices to go his way.  That could backfire.  I understand that many Presidents have done this in the past and he isn't the first.  The other side of the posturing is that he is already building his response to when it gets overturned.

Frankly, I think portions of it will be overturned or it will be overturned in such a manner that Congress will be able to patch it...like taking away the penalty for not insuring oneself.

Bottom line, if something is unconstitutional, the justices can't turn a blind eye simply because of the size of the majority or the popularity of the law.  Seems to me this happened a few times during the New Deal, and Roosevelt's packing of the court made things worse.  But I'm not a lawyer.  I don't even play one on tv.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2012, 08:35:58 am
So, I would see Obama's words as posturing in the sense that he's trash talking, trying to get inside the heads of the justices to go his way.  That could backfire.  I understand that many Presidents have done this in the past and he isn't the first.

While Obama is certainly not the first (not only did FDR offer his court packing plan to pressure the Supreme Court to go his way, Lincoln openly defied at least one Supreme Court order, meaning he wasn't really concerned about pressuring them to produce decisions he liked, he simply made clear he was going to ignore them), it is entirely inaccurate to say that "many Presidents have done this in the past."

Other than FDR, I can't think of a single president who is quoted as EVER making that kind of comment about litigation at that moment before the Court.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 05, 2012, 12:33:19 pm
Read Thomas Jefferson's editorials (while he was president) in the Washington papers during the Aaron Burr trial.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2012, 02:06:32 pm
Read Thomas Jefferson's editorials (while he was president) in the Washington papers during the Aaron Burr trial.

Save me some time.  My memory is that Jefferson was quite unhappy with the prosecution of Burr, but summarize for us what he wrote about the courts and the idea of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation (which would not seem to have been at issue in Burr's trial).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 05, 2012, 02:28:07 pm
It had nothing to do with judicial review.  But he greatly tried to interfere with the ongoing trial, sending op ed pieces to the local papers proclaiming that Burr was guilty of treason.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2012, 02:43:19 pm
It had nothing to do with judicial review.  But he greatly tried to interfere with the ongoing trial, sending op ed pieces to the local papers proclaiming that Burr was guilty of treason.

If Jefferson did that, he was clearly wrong in doing so, but that is qualitatively different from Obama's comments.

Meanwhile, though I know eastcoastfan is appalled at Judge Smith's call for a letter outlining the administration's position on the concept of judicial review, I was not the only one who applauded him for it.

http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/04/03/my-professor-my-judge-and-the-doctrine-of-judicial-review/
My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review

Posted by Thom Lambert on April 3, 2012

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun.  Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise.  Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5.  You’d be a little embarrassed, right?  You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”  Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas.  Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”:  “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question.  It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t).  President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago.  Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student).  Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.  (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.)  Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.

Fortunately, another bit of my educational background somewhat mitigates the reputational damage inflicted by the President’s unfortunate comments.  This morning, the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, called the President’s bluff.

Here’s a bit of transcript from this morning’s oral argument in Physicians Hospital of America v. Sebelius, a case involving a challenge to the Affordable Care Act:

Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the President, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the President’s statements and again to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

I must say, I’m pretty dang proud of Judge Smith right now.  And I’m really looking forward to reading that three-page, single-spaced letter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 05, 2012, 09:26:50 pm
Tico -- "Unprecedented" since the Lochner era - i.e., prior to 1937.  The Court has not overruled a major piece of economic legislation by Congress as exceeding Congress's Commerce Clause powers since 1936.  It has reviewed congressional acts under the CC since then only for rationality and, indulging a presumption of constitutionality, upheld each one.  Moreover, it has never struck down a piece of legislation this major.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 05, 2012, 09:42:49 pm
East, that doesn't seem to be the tack that the President is taking today.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 05, 2012, 09:49:23 pm
How so, Curt? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 05, 2012, 10:10:57 pm
Today he stated that he was misunderstood and that "unprecedented" referred to "vital legislation."  He didn't reference anything about commerce act etc.  I saw a number of others note that this use of the 10th Amendment seldom arises because there has been no other effort to force "commerce" on every individual.  I don't claim to comprehend all that, but your explanation above seems to go beyond anything Obama, his press secretary, or the AG said today.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2012, 10:32:10 pm
Tico -- "Unprecedented" since the Lochner era - i.e., prior to 1937.  The Court has not overruled a major piece of economic legislation by Congress as exceeding Congress's Commerce Clause powers since 1936.  It has reviewed congressional acts under the CC since then only for rationality and, indulging a presumption of constitutionality, upheld each one.  Moreover, it has never struck down a piece of legislation this major.

And that is at the very heart of the problem.  It is hard to think of other legislation which has been as far reaching in scope as this, or as complicated, or as ill-thought out.  And then beyond all of that it is passed by very narrow margins, along virtually purely partisan lines, and includes an absolutely unprecedented individual mandate which if approved will have established a precedent to the effect that Congress can mandate anyone to do anything.

The fact that the Court may not have overturned any legislation that major in the past makes it all the more important that it do so now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 05, 2012, 10:44:11 pm
Fair enough; although I profoundly disagree, I haven't been debating the merits of the law's constitutionality.  I have simply been trying to explain that the President's remarks, while a bit careless in one sentence and arguably ill-advised, could not possibly have been understood by reasonable and informed listeners to have been a repudiation of Marbury v. Madison.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 05, 2012, 10:50:25 pm
Curt -- Can you give me a link?  I honestly just don't follow.  Did he explain what he meant by "unprecedented'?  In any event, did he clarify that he of course did not mean to make the absurd claim that the Court had never before struck down an act of Congress?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 05, 2012, 10:55:29 pm
East, I don't think his comments were directed to those a lawyer would consider reasonable and informed listeners.  I think they were aimed at folks who not only could not recite the issues or background of Marbury v. Madison, but those who are not only entirely unaware of the legal principle it established, they would have doubts about whether it should exist.  I believe it was part of a calculated effort on the part of Obama to suggest to the Court that if they fail to rule in his favor, he will try to pull an Andrew Jackson, implement ObamaCare anyway, and ask Chief Justice Roberts how he would intend to enforce his ruling.

I think Smith's request (or order) of the DOJ was very, very important in order to pin down the administration and make that a bit less likely.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 05, 2012, 11:20:12 pm
Jes, I honestly cannot fathom how you could think that. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 06, 2012, 12:06:41 am
Because we have seen what the administration did in ignoring the court order on permits for Gulf drilling, and we have seen the efforts to implement massive regulation of "greenhouse gases" without Congressional authorization, and we have had Obama talk about wanting to mobilize a civilian militia as large as the US military in support of his measures.  We see in history that Jackson and Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court whenever they wanted to.  It is not exactly unprecedented.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 06, 2012, 06:24:26 am
No, I can't, East.  It was a stream of things on CNN, FOX, and local news yesterday, as well as a few things that popped up on the net.  I didn't keep track.  But, yes, he made it clear that he wasn't challenging M vs. M.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 06, 2012, 12:44:10 pm
For East:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/us/obama-judges/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on April 06, 2012, 07:29:05 pm
Thanks, Curt.  That article summarizes the whole issue nicely.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 10, 2012, 01:47:19 pm
Santorum is suspending his campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/santorum-to-suspend-campaign-120127.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 10, 2012, 02:57:48 pm
Good.

Too bad he didn't do it back in September.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Phill23 on April 10, 2012, 05:13:20 pm
Agreed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on April 11, 2012, 04:40:05 pm
Why should he have quit in September, Jes? How would that have made sense, seeing as he won Iowa?

Oh, wait, sour grapes from Ron Paul supporter convinced Paul would win Iowa....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2012, 07:29:57 pm
Why should he have quit in September, Jes? How would that have made sense, seeing as he won Iowa?

Oh, wait, sour grapes from Ron Paul supporter convinced Paul would win Iowa....

I didn't say that he "should have quit" in September, but that it was too bad that he did not quit.

So to answer the question you might have intended to ask -- why I think it is too bad that he did not quit -- Santorum was a uniquely divisive character, whose campaign too attention and debate time from the candidate (Paul) who I still believe would have the best general election chance to beat Obama, thereby reducing his chance of getting the nomination, and helped to make the candidate most likely to get the nomination marginally less likely to beat Obama.

And Santorum did all of this without any real chance of getting the nomination, and with the poorest chance of beating Obama if he did get it.

And ironically, since you are so strong on candidates being "true Republicans," using a measure known only to you to determine what that might be, when Santorum bowed out of the race he did so without a real endorsement of the guy who is now a near certainty to be the nominee, almost as if he hopes to see the 2012 Republican candidate lose, so he has a better chance at the nomination in 2016.

Santorum is a quality POS.  I can not think of a single thing I like about the guy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 11, 2012, 07:45:27 pm
Paul is the only candidate that would have been more divisive a candidate as Santorum, and would have been an even easier target for the media and political opponents.  In a head to head race against Obama, he would draw the least total votes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on April 11, 2012, 08:15:41 pm
The "media" and political oppenents caused the santorum to get out?

Seriously.

How about the candidate himself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2012, 08:53:45 pm
Paul is the only candidate that would have been more divisive a candidate as Santorum, and would have been an even easier target for the media and political opponents.  In a head to head race against Obama, he would draw the least total votes.

I have explained why I believe that is the exact opposite of what would happen, and I don't think you have really challenged any of it.

Certainly Paul would attract some voters who would not under any circumstances be expected to vote for any of the other Republican candidates.

And conversely some of the base Republicans would be less enthusiastic about Paul than some of the other Republican candidates.

But what blocks of Republican voters would en masse stay home, or vote for Obama or a 3rd party candidate?

The Dick Cheney pro-interventionist voters would grudgingly vote Paul over Obama, hoping to change Paul's positions once in office.

Paul's positions are very much in line with the fundamentalist Christian voters.

The pro-business crowd would certainly prefer someone who was doing his best to tilt the marketplace their way instead of someone who actually supports economic freedom, but there is no way they would prefer Obama.

Even the moralistic William Bennett Republicans would vote Paul over Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on April 11, 2012, 09:00:13 pm
I have explained why I believe that is the exact opposite of what would happen, and I don't think you have really challenged any of it.

You certainly have.  And I have heard many people explain why they believe that evolution did not happen.

Neither explanation seemed to have much foundation in the real world.  They both rank up there with your suggestion that politicians would accept having a live video camera around their necks 24 hours a day to eliminate dishonesty in politics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 11, 2012, 09:46:20 pm
You certainly have.  And I have heard many people explain why they believe that evolution did not happen.

Neither explanation seemed to have much foundation in the real world.

In other words, you really have no logical or articulable basis for your position.

I can accept that.



They both rank up there with your suggestion that politicians would accept having a live video camera around their necks 24 hours a day to eliminate dishonesty in politics.

Not "voluntarily accept," as if someone were try to get them to do it.

Those who do so will do so quite eagerly.  And it is without question going to happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 17, 2012, 11:58:53 am
Jay Leno: "President Obama released his tax returns. It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 than he did in 2010. You know what that means? Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 26, 2012, 04:32:02 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting
By Chris Francescani
SANFORD, Florida | Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:20pm EDT
(Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.

By June 2011, Zimmerman's attention had shifted from a loose pit bull to a wave of robberies that rattled the community, called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime.

Few of his closest neighbors knew he carried a gun - until two months ago.

On February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in what Zimmerman says was self-defense. The furor that ensued has consumed the country and prompted a re-examination of guns, race and self-defense laws enacted in nearly half the United States.

During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.

But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.

Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.

The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

"MIXED" HOUSEHOLD

George Michael Zimmerman was born in 1983 to Robert and Gladys Zimmerman, the third of four children. Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.

In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District.

Robert and Gladys met in January 1975, when George Mesa brought along his army buddy to his sister's birthday party. She was visiting from Peru, on vacation from her job there as a physical education teacher. Robert was a Baptist, Gladys was Catholic. They soon married, in a Catholic ceremony in Alexandria, and moved to nearby Manassas.

Gladys came to lead a small but growing Catholic Hispanic enclave within the All Saints Catholic Church parish in the late 1970s, where she was involved in the church's outreach programs. Gladys would bring young George along with her on "home visits" to poor families, said a family friend, Teresa Post.

"It was part of their upbringing to know that there are people in need, people more in need than themselves," said Post, a Peruvian immigrant who lived with the Zimmermans for a time.

Post recalls evening prayers before dinner in the ethnically diverse Zimmerman household, which included siblings Robert Jr., Grace, and Dawn. "It wasn't only white or only Hispanic or only black - it was mixed," she said.

Zimmerman's maternal grandmother, Cristina, who had lived with the Zimmermans since 1978, worked as a babysitter for years during Zimmerman's childhood. For several years she cared for two African-American girls who ate their meals at the Zimmerman house and went back and forth to school each day with the Zimmerman children.

"They were part of the household for years, until they were old enough to be on their own," Post said.

Zimmerman served as an altar boy at All Saints from age 7 to 17, church members said.

"He wasn't the type where, you know, 'I'm being forced to do this,' and a dragging-his-feet Catholic," said Sandra Vega, who went to high school with George and his siblings. "He was an altar boy for years, and then worked in the rectory too. He has a really good heart."

George grew up bilingual, and by age 10 he was often called to the Haydon Elementary School principal's office to act as a translator between administrators and immigrant parents. At 14 he became obsessed with becoming a Marine, a relative said, joining the after-school ROTC program at Grace E. Metz Middle School and polishing his boots by night. At 15, he worked three part-time jobs - in a Mexican restaurant, for the rectory, and washing cars - on nights and weekends, to save up for a car.

After graduating from Osbourn High School in 2001, Zimmerman moved to Lake Mary, Florida, a town neighboring Sanford. His parents purchased a retirement home there in 2002, in part to bring Cristina, who suffers from arthritis, to a warmer climate.

YOUNG INSURANCE AGENT

On his own at 18, George got a job at an insurance agency and began to take classes at night to earn a license to sell insurance. He grew friendly with a real estate agent named Lee Ann Benjamin, who shared office space in the building, and later her husband, John Donnelly, a Sanford attorney.

"George impressed me right off the bat as just a real go-getter," Donnelly said. "He was working days and taking all these classes at night, passing all the insurance classes, not just for home insurance, but auto insurance and everything. He wanted to open his own office - and he did."

In 2004, Zimmerman partnered with an African-American friend and opened up an Allstate insurance satellite office, Donnelly said.

Then came 2005, and a series of troubles. Zimmerman's business failed, he was arrested, and he broke off an engagement with a woman who filed a restraining order against him.

That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.

In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended.

In 2007 he married Shellie Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, and in 2009 the couple rented a townhouse in the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Zimmerman had bounced from job to job for a couple of years, working at a car dealership and a mortgage company. At times, according to testimony from Shellie at a bond hearing for Zimmerman last week, the couple filed for unemployment benefits.

Zimmerman enrolled in Seminole State College in 2009, and in December 2011 he was permitted to participate in a school graduation ceremony, despite being a course credit shy of his associate's degree in criminal justice. Zimmerman was completing that course credit when the shooting occurred.

On March 22, nearly a month after the shooting and with the controversy by then swirling nationwide, the school issued a press release saying it was taking the "unusual, but necessary" step of withdrawing Zimmerman's enrollment, citing "the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."

A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FEAR

By the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes was experiencing a rash of burglaries and break-ins. Previously a family-friendly, first-time homeowner community, it was devastated by the recession that hit the Florida housing market, and transient renters began to occupy some of the 263 town houses in the complex. Vandalism and occasional drug activity were reported, and home values plunged. One resident who bought his home in 2006 for $250,000 said it was worth $80,000 today.

At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.

In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50 percent white, with an African-American and Hispanic population of about 20 percent each, roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S. Census data.

One morning in July 2011, a black teenager walked up to Zimmerman's front porch and stole a bicycle, neighbors told Reuters. A police report was taken, though the bicycle was not recovered.

But it was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman. Shellie was home most days, taking online courses towards certification as a registered nurse.

On August 3, Bertalan was at home with her infant son while her husband, Michael, was at work. She watched from a downstairs window, she said, as two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell and then entered through a sliding door at the back of the house. She ran upstairs, locked herself inside the boy's bedroom, and called a police dispatcher, whispering frantically.

"I said, 'What am I supposed to do? I hear them coming up the stairs!'" she told Reuters. Bertalan tried to coo her crying child into silence and armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors.

Police arrived just as the burglars - who had been trying to disconnect the couple's television - fled out a back door. Shellie Zimmerman saw a black male teen running through her backyard and reported it to police.

After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open.

"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week."

In September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the homeowners association with their concerns, she said. Zimmerman was asked to head up a new neighborhood watch. He agreed.

"PLEASE CONTACT OUR CAPTAIN"

Police had advised Bertalan to get a dog. She and her husband decided to move out instead, and left two days before the shooting. Zimmerman took the advice.

"He'd already had a mutt that he walked around the neighborhood every night - man, he loved that dog - but after that home invasion he also got a Rottweiler," said Jorge Rodriguez, a friend and neighbor of the Zimmermans.

Around the same time, Zimmerman also gave Rodriguez and his wife, Audria, his contact information, so they could reach him day or night. Rodriguez showed the index card to Reuters. In neat cursive was a list of George and Shellie's home number and cell phones, as well as their emails.

Less than two weeks later, another Twin Lakes home was burglarized, police reports show. Two weeks after that, a home under construction was vandalized.

The Retreat at Twin Lakes e-newsletter for February 2012 noted: "The Sanford PD has announced an increased patrol within our neighborhood ... during peak crime hours.

"If you've been a victim of a crime in the community, after calling police, please contact our captain, George Zimmerman."

EMMANUEL BURGESS - SETTING THE STAGE

On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.

"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.

Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.

Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said. He is now in jail on parole violations.

Three days after Burgess was arrested, Zimmerman's grandmother was hospitalized for an infection, and the following week his father was also admitted for a heart condition. Zimmerman spent a number of those nights on a hospital room couch.

Ten days after his father was hospitalized, Zimmerman noticed another young man in the neighborhood, acting in a way he found familiar, so he made another call to police.

"We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy," Zimmerman said, as Trayvon Martin returned home from the store.

The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess, he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away.

This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin.

"These ****," he muttered in an aside, "they always get away."

After the phone call ended, several minutes passed when the movements of Zimmerman and Martin remain a mystery.

Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on April 26, 2012, 08:21:52 pm
I thought this was really interesting. I always figured Romney would be at a money disadvantage to Obama.  This article says Romney and the RNC are hoping to raise $800 million for the general, and if they can do that, they will outspend Obama and the DNC.

And that doesn't include spending from outside groups like American Crossroads, where Romney will already have a huge advantage.

 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/223793-top-romney-fundraiser-donors-coming-out-of-the-woodwork



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 27, 2012, 10:09:08 am
Obama will end up being at a serious money disadvantage, partly because many of the folks who helped bankroll the first campaign are simply not wildly enthusiastic about him this time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on April 27, 2012, 01:05:20 pm
You can tell yourself that, doubt that it will happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 03, 2012, 10:16:30 pm
If it weren't for Jes assuring us that Obama has no chance to win, this would worry me:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 06:41:53 am
Play, that map is way for favorable more Obama than reason would have.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 04, 2012, 08:23:50 am
That's good to know, Jes.  Thanks for the insight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 08:35:14 am
Play, start looking at some of the states.

That site lists Georgia as merely leaning toward Romney, not even likely for Romney.  Georgia is a virtual lock for anyone running against Obama.  It lists Ohio, Florida, AZ, NC and VA as tossups, with PA as a likely Obama state.  Each of those listings is far more favorable to Obama than they should be.

Just start looking at them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 04, 2012, 08:38:06 am
Play, that map is way for favorable for Obama than reason would have.

I wouldn't go that far, but most of those "toss up" states were Bush states in 2000 and 2004.  A lot of those states will probably wind up in the "Lean Romney" column if current conditions stay the same and once voters start tuning in to the election and become more familiar with him.

Most of the state electoral college maps that are starting to come out probably can be taken with a grain of salt at this point.  There really hasn't been a lot of in state polling going on, and most people still aren't really tuned in for the election yet.

As in the last few elections, you can probably count on Florida and Ohio being the most important states and probably Virginia starting to fall into that category as well. 

I also wouldn't be surprised if some of those midwest states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan where that map has them "Leaning Obama" become more in play for Republicans this year as well.  They all voted Republican in the last election, and especially in a place like Pennsylvania, it doesn't seem like Obama's all that popular there.  States like those might wind up in the "Toss Up" column as people start becoming more tuned in.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 04, 2012, 08:45:35 am
In 2008, Obama won those three states by a margin >10% each.  Maybe the electorate will be down enough on Obama and/or more enthusiastic about Romney (vs McCain) to make up the difference.  Seems doubtful to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 08:47:09 am
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/more-evidence-obamas-a-depraved-liar/
MORE EVIDENCE OBAMA'S A DEPRAVED LIAR
by MYCHAL MASSIE

Speaking at the Carmichael Arena, in Chapel Hill, N.C., last Tuesday, Obama displayed not just his commonality, he purposefully lied to a handpicked audience of students. And as he always does, he was belittling someone else to make himself look good. Said behavior is typical of someone who carries the scars of the type of parents he had, but such behavior isn’t the character trait of an emotionally stable leader.

In boasting about his plans to keep student interest rates on federal loans from doubling, he said: “One Republican congresswoman said just recently – I am going to quote this because I know you guys will think I’m making this up. She said she had very little tolerance for people who tell [her] they graduate with debt because there’s no reason for that.” He mockingly continued: “I am just quoting here, she said students who rack up student loan debt are just sitting on their butts, having opportunity dumped in [their] lap.” He finished with: “Now can you imagine saying something like that?”

Actually, Barry, what we have difficulty with is your dishonesty. The congresswoman he was referencing is Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and her exact words were: “I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt, because there’s no reason for that. We live in an opportunity society, and people are forgetting that. I remind folks that the Declaration of Independence says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don’t sit on your butt and have it dumped in your lap.”

Rep. Foxx, unlike Obama and his wife, didn’t have her education handed to her because she was Kenyan, black, Muslim, or because the school needed another black to make its quota. She worked as a janitor, and it took her seven years to get her undergraduate degree at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But she graduated debt-free.

The next day, Obama swaggered up to another microphone with the same toothy leer and reprised his role as liar-in-chief. At the University of Iowa, he said: “You’ve got one member of Congress who compared these student loans [and] I’m not kidding here – to a stage-three cancer of socialism.” With a condescending grin, and preening before the handpicked crowd, he continued: “Stage-three cancer? I don’t know where to start. What do you mean? What are you talking about? Come on. Just when you think you’ve heard it all in Washington, somebody comes up with a new way to go off the deep end.”

I’ll tell you what I’m talking about Barry. I’m talking about you being a depraved liar. You were referring to Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who in response to the student loan issue had harshly criticized the government’s taking over college loans.

Akin’s exact words were: “America has got the equivalent of the stage-three cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in. So first, to answer your question precisely, what the Democrats did to get rid of the private student loans and take it all over by the government was wrong. It was a lousy bill. That’s why I voted no. The government needs to get its nose out of the education business.” I’d say that is hugely different than what Obama claimed.

In an August of 2011 column, “Nero in the White House,” I wrote: “Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides … [but] in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn’t only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. … His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.”

The tragedy is that many of those students believed what he was saying, and others didn’t care one way or the other, as long as he was promising them something. In Chapel Hill, a girl seated behind Obama shook her head in disgust, wrongly believing his lies about Foxx.

But that student probably wasn’t thinking about finishing school with $25,000-$200,000 in student loan debt alone. Nor was she likely thinking about the credit-card debt and car payments she was going to have on top of that student loan debt.

In that same column, I wrote: “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.”

Let me remind me you of something else I’ve been saying. Extending the lowered student loan interest rate is setting up another financial bubble because there is no way to pay for it.

But don’t look for Romney to bring relief to this madness – he agrees with Obama that the plan should be extended another year. But hey, like they say, anybody but Obama
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 04, 2012, 09:26:54 am
In 2008, Obama won those three states by a margin >10% each.  Maybe the electorate will be down enough on Obama and/or more enthusiastic about Romney (vs McCain) to make up the difference.  Seems doubtful to me.

It pretty much comes down to the economy.  If the economy starts showing some strong signs of recovery, Obama probably wins those states by >10% (and probably gets re-elected in a landslide).

If the economy remains tepid, well you're talking about states that voted for Scott Walker, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson in the last election.  Especially Pennsylvania, where as James Carville once said consists of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with the whole state of Alabama in between.  I get the feeling Pennsylvania is going to be a lot harder for Obama to win than what a lot of these electoral maps are showing right now.  There's a whole swath of that state that, like Alabama or West Virginia, can't stand Obama right now.

And I think the enthusiasm gap between Obama and the Republicans has closed enough since 2008 where 10% differences can be made up in states like those.  Obama is definitely not the fresh face that he was or as popular as he was in 2008, and you don't have George W. Bush holding down the Republican ticket like he did in '08. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 09:51:43 am
Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 04, 2012, 09:54:43 am
Hard to get that kind of reasoned political analysis.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2012, 10:27:53 am
Right now I would put Obama's reelection chances at between 57 % and 90 %.  Time might change that, but I doubt it.  The tea party is essentially dead, as a force for the election.  The unification of the economic and social conservatives that made such a difference in 2010 has been effectively split.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 04, 2012, 10:33:21 am
BTW Dave, what's going on with the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin?  Basically a coinflip there on whether he gets recalled or not?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2012, 10:44:34 am
Just got back to Wisconsin a couple of days ago.  From the little I know of it, it is going to be close. 

I can say that there are ads running against him every day on both television and radio.  According to the local paper, Unions are expected to spend more than 30 million dollars on the recall.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on May 04, 2012, 11:30:08 am
I heard Walker has raised 25 million dollars, most of it from out-of-state sources.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 04, 2012, 11:45:02 am
In four years, Horn will coin "Romneyed."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 04, 2012, 11:52:15 am
To borrow a line from Dennis Miller, Ronmey is going to get "stomped like a narc at a biker rally".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 04, 2012, 11:53:55 am
And Romney isn't going to fare much better.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 04, 2012, 11:55:01 am
All comes down to the economy.  If it stays the way it is, Romney's going to have a real shot at it.  It'll be the biggest issue in the campaign, and Romney will have a big edge on Obama on that issue.

If the economy starts showing strong signs of recovery, then yeah, Obama wins in a landslide, and Horn will indeed coin "Romneyed".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 04, 2012, 12:00:19 pm
I disagree only slightly, JR.  I think if the economy continues its modest recovery (and nothing else occurs that's game changing), Obama wins.  I think the lack of enthusiasm for Romney from the right will be telling.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2012, 12:06:42 pm
I agree.  There are two issues where Obama is vulnerable.  One is the economy, which is recovering slowly, and can be portrayed as recovering quickly.  The other is Obamacare, which is extremely unpopular, but which can be portrayed as very similar to Romneycare in Mass.  Essentially, nominating Romney has diminished an extremely effective issue.

Plus, "reelect" is a powerful phrase in any election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 04, 2012, 12:38:06 pm
I disagree only slightly, JR.  I think if the economy continues its modest recovery (and nothing else occurs that's game changing), Obama wins.  I think the lack of enthusiasm for Romney from the right will be telling.

No doubt that many on the right are not enthusiastic about Romney but they will remember what happened when they stayed home as a protest over McCain. Doubt they want to repeat that mistake.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2012, 01:59:14 pm
I hope they won't stay home and sulk, but I know several that say that they will not vote this year.  There will also be some that will vote for the Green party or one of the others rather than Obama.  Don't know which will be the most important.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 04, 2012, 02:14:46 pm
Not sure why the masses won't vote for the guy giving away the candy store.  Guys get re-elected because of their overall popularity, like FDR or Reagan or because they're perceived as the one that will keep the goodies coming.  Obama kind of fits both.

I think the guy's name was Taylor, back in the 1840's or whatever; he was a professor who predicted that the US would cease as a democracy sometime before 2050.  He said the history of democracies is that as soon as people realize they can vote themselves entitlements, the downward spiral will begin.  In 1840, I don't think there were any entitlements of any kind.

This is not an anti-Democrat post.  When either party comes into power, even if they recognize that the spiral is out of control, they fear trying to stop it.  How do you tell the elderly that their Social Security check isn't coming?  Or will be reduced?  You can't.  Same with military retired, welfare recipients, medical needs people.  The genie is out of the bottle.

Taylor predicted that we will become a dictatorship in order to straighten things out...whether that be left or right wing, I don't think he said, but neither party is going to be able to vote reason back into the system.  Won't happen.  So whoever is in power, R or D, will use that to get re-elected. 

Have a nice weekend.  :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2012, 04:59:17 pm
That was Alexis de Toqueville who said that democracy can only work until the people realize that they can vote themselves money out of the public purse.  I think he wrote "Democracy in America" in 1835.  Others might have quoted him later.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 04, 2012, 05:10:05 pm
Toqueville in North Dakotan is pronounced Taylor.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 06:54:52 pm
Hard to get that kind of reasoned political analysis.

Ah, so everything here now must be "reasoned political analysis."

Does that mean the thread is going to be scrubbed?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 06:55:33 pm
Right now I would put Obama's reelection chances at between 57 % and 90 %.  Time might change that, but I doubt it.  The tea party is essentially dead, as a force for the election.  The unification of the economic and social conservatives that made such a difference in 2010 has been effectively split.

Double or nothing on dinner?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 04, 2012, 07:01:02 pm
Double or nothing on dinner?

Done.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 07:03:20 pm
All comes down to the economy.  If it stays the way it is, Romney's going to have a real shot at it.

But it will not stay the way it is.  It is now slowing, from what was already the most anemic recovery in history, and there are several things on the near horizon which could seriously hurt the economy.


"reelect" is a powerful phrase in any election.

Not always, but it will be this year, though everything indicates that it will be a powerful negative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 04, 2012, 07:17:11 pm
Not sure why the masses won't vote for the guy giving away the candy store....  I think the guy's name was Taylor, back in the 1840's or whatever; he was a professor who predicted that the US would cease as a democracy sometime before 2050.  He said the history of democracies is that as soon as people realize they can vote themselves entitlements, the downward spiral will begin.  In 1840, I don't think there were any entitlements of any kind.... Taylor predicted that we will become a dictatorship in order to straighten things out...

That's probably why Reagan was never elected, nor was the elder Bush, and why Nixon won only after he started promising to increase welfare spending.  It's also why Clinton signing the Welfare Reform act in 1996, before the election kept him from getting a 2nd term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler
Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee (15 October 1747 - 5 January 1813) was a Scottish lawyer, writer, and professor.

The following unverified quotation has been attributed to Tytler, most notably as part of a longer piece which began circulating on the Internet shortly after the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election.[9]
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having made the statement.[9] In fact, this passage actually comprises two quotations, which didn't begin to appear together until the 1970s. The first portion (italicized above) first appeared on December 9, 1951, [10] as part of what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson.[11] The original version from Peterson's op-ed is as follows:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
The list beginning "From bondage to spiritual faith" is commonly known as the "Tytler Cycle" or the "Fatal Sequence". Its first known appearance is in a 1943 speech "Industrial Management in a Republic"[12] by H. W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Company and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and appears to be original to Prentis.


But LOTS of folks have gotten it wrong (just as the the quote itself gets wrong things such as the average lifespan "of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history (having) been about 200 years."

http://www.nelsonprice.com/to-survive-we-must-learn-from-our-past/
A person can look like a prophet by applying abiding historical principles to a current situation and making a prediction.  The year was 1786 and the 13 original states were busy approving their new constitution. Scottish history professor, Alexander Taylor, at the University of Edinborough wrote the following about “The Fall of the Athenian Republic.”
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasure, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policies, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
His study of Athenian history enables him to draw from a 2,000 year old example. Each day his forecast is looking frighteningly more like the writing of a divine prophet. Onebiblical test of a true prophet is that he is always right. I hope the wise Dr. Taylor proves not to be a true prophet.
The sage Benjamin Franklin seemed aware of this principle when he concluded, “When people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
It is like lacing a boot. The more a politician gives the more votes he gets. The more votes he gets the more likely he is to get reelected. The more he is reelected the more money he gives away. For many the issue is reelection not what is good for the country. I literally thank God for the admirable exceptions to this.




Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 07, 2012, 12:54:26 pm
Culprit in Prehistoric Climate Change: Dinosaur Farts

http://www.newser.com/story/145526/culprit-in-prehistoric-climate-change-dinosaur-farts.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: chifaninva on May 07, 2012, 03:40:33 pm
I hope they won't stay home and sulk, but I know several that say that they will not vote this year.  There will also be some that will vote for the Green party or one of the others rather than Obama.  Don't know which will be the most important.

Why if you're unhappy with Obama would you stay home, or vote green party. That never makes sense to me. The idiot passed the biggest tax and spend bill in history, why would someone sit back to see what other liberal social garbage he comes up with in his second term when he has nothing to lose.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 07, 2012, 08:37:40 pm
Social conservatives have a legtitimate beef with the Republican party.

The Democratic party is made up of several interest groups that have very little in common.  Although there is always some overlap, blacks have nothing in common with homosexuals.  Homosexuals have little in common with Labor unions.  Labor unions have little in common with environmentalists.  Environmentalists have little in common with blacks.  Ect.  But they all vote democratic, because they know the democratic party will give each faction SOMETHING.

the republican party is made up of largely two groups that again have nothing basic in common, Economic and Social conservatives.  But the economic conservatives are always at war with the social conservatives, and would often rather the republicans lose, than give something to the social conservatives.  And it also works the other way around.

Republicans are often very foolish when it comes to politics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 07, 2012, 08:57:40 pm
(CNN) – Were Ronald Reagan in office today, some Republicans would “start looking for a ‘real’ conservative to challenge him in a primary,” Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote in an op-ed published Saturday evening.

The former California governor said that the man who held that office 30 years before him – before becoming president - is becoming more a distant memory than a model to some Republicans on the “extreme right.” They are playing the role of “ideological enforcers” rather than seeking inclusion and solutions, wrote Schwarzenegger, himself a Republican.

“What's important is our shared belief in the broad Republican principles of free enterprise and small government,” he said in the op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times. “If we continue to fight one another without being willing to compromise, we will keep losing to big-government advocates.”

Schwarzenegger encouraged his party to embrace a “big tent” mentality rather than exclude Republicans who are willing to compromise and, like Reagan and others, occasionally “buck their party.”

“It is true that he worked to reduce the size of government and cut federal taxes, and he eliminated many regulations. But he also raised taxes when necessary. In 1983, he doubled the gas tax to pay for highway infrastructure improvements,” said Schwarzenegger, who like Reagan made his name in Hollywood before going into politics.

“By holding their fingers in their ears when those topics arise, these Republicans aren't just denying themselves a seat at the table; in a state such as California, they also deny a seat to every other Republican,” he continued.

Schwarzenegger said he opposes the ideological “rigidity” of some in his party, but remained a Republican because he was “too stubborn to leave a party I believe in.”
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 07, 2012, 09:04:25 pm
I am generally not in favor of a "big tent" party.  If a party is going to mean anything,it has to stand on certain principles.  That means that it has to stand for specific things, and be against other specific things.  But there is no inherent conflict between economic conservatives and social conservatives.  It is quite possible to be both at the same time without sacrificing the principles of either.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 07, 2012, 09:51:38 pm
I am generally not in favor of a "big tent" party.  If a party is going to mean anything,it has to stand on certain principles.  That means that it has to stand for specific things, and be against other specific things.  But there is no inherent conflict between economic conservatives and social conservatives.  It is quite possible to be both at the same time without sacrificing the principles of either.

It is?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 07, 2012, 09:59:48 pm
Of course.  It is possible to be in favor of low taxes and free trade, and at the same time be in favor of conservative social issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 07, 2012, 10:04:48 pm
There is no inherent conflict between economic and social conservatism, but there is often great conflict between economic and social conservatives.

For example, many economic conservatives are liberal or libertarian on social issues.

Just as many social conservatives are economic leftists.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 07, 2012, 10:15:43 pm
True.  Just as some labor union members dislike homosexuals or minorities.  Or some blacks are uninterested in conservation.  But few of them refuse to vote because of those issues because they realize that the democratic party will give something to each interest group.  It is usually the republicans that would rather a democrat win than a conservative of the wrong persuasion, partly because the other side not only doesn't agree with them, but works actively against them.

It is one thing to be disinterested in the other guy's desires.  It is quite another thing to be actively against them.  That is why the liberal democratic party consistently wins elections even though a majority of voters do not describe themselves as liberal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2012, 05:26:54 am
I am generally not in favor of a "big tent" party.  If a party is going to mean anything,it has to stand on certain principles.  That means that it has to stand for specific things, and be against other specific things.  But there is no inherent conflict between economic conservatives and social conservatives. It is quite possible to be both at the same time without sacrificing the principles of either.

Yes, there is an inherent conflict, and that is the problem Republicans have.

Social conservatives want larger, more powerful and more intrusive government.  Economic conservatives want smaller, weaker and less intrusive government.

And that conflict is utterly unreconcilable.  Republicans on the national level do their best to paper over that conflict by trying to push many of the social issues down to the state level where the states intrude into private lives, but they do want that intrusion.  In fact when it becomes clear the states are not going to do so, the social conservatives will demand that the federal government do so.  But the social conservatives do NOT want limited government, and the economic conservatives do.

Democrats of today are not bothered by this conflict.  Virtually all of the Democratic interest groups want a larger, more powerful, more intrusive government.  They simply will quibble over what they want it to do with that power.

And the argument over what government will do with power is far less fundamental and significant than whether government will have the power in the first place.

But the economic conservatives are always at war with the social conservatives, and would often rather the republicans lose, than give something to the social conservatives.

Without question, and thank goodness for that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 08, 2012, 11:56:57 am
Hardly true.  The vast majority of social conservatives do NOT want a larger, more intrusive government.  Many want it to continue to be as intrusive in some areas, such as marriage and abortion, but very little beyond that.  And that is NOT in conflict with economic conservatives.  It IS in conflict with some of the fringe groups such as libertarians, but that is another issue.

And yes, many try to move various issues such as abortion down to the state level, where the founding fathers thought they belonged.  The concept of federalism was to allow local government to decide as many issues as practical.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 08, 2012, 09:50:01 pm
dave, you tell me which positions I am wrong on regarding social conservatives:

1) They want school sanctioned and school-led prayer in public schools.

2) They want government control over pornography, not only magazines, but also on the internet, and on cable television.

3) They want to continue the "war on drugs."

4) They support English as the "official language" of the United States.

5) They want to ban gay marriage and plural marriage.

6) They support government restrictions on strip clubs.

7) They support immigration quotas to assure that we don't have "too many" immigrants.

8) They support Christian religious displays (such as a creche or cross or the Ten Commandments) in government buildings and on government property.

9) They not only oppose government spending on "sacriligeous art," they also oppose its public display even if the art was privately financed.

10) They would criminalize consensual sex between homosexuals if they thought there was any possibility of doing so.

11) They opposed allowing the construction of a mosque near ground zero, and believe local government should have the power to prevent mosques from building anywhere which might offend the local community.

12) They have few if any problems with "The Patriot Act," or indefinite detention or rendition, so long as it is of "the right people."

13) They are not likely to complain about TSA, since the government needs to "keep us safe" from terrorists, and they like the idea of profiling in that effort, since they believe the "terrorists" are virtually always foreigners, particularly middle eastern male Muslims.

14) Very little about big government in general in the economic arena offends them, unless they happen to also have a true libertarian bent, something which is not at all required for social conservatives.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: chifaninva on May 09, 2012, 11:26:09 am
like the idea of profiling in that effort, since they believe the "terrorists" are virtually always foreigners, particularly middle eastern male Muslims.

If I'm not mistaken, those weren't lilly white Irishman piloting those planes (on 911)..
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 11:55:40 am
dave, you tell me which positions I am wrong on regarding social conservatives:

1) They want school sanctioned and school-led prayer in public schools.

Which is worse - voluntary prayer in school or a socialist Federal Government?

2) They want government control over ****ography, not only magazines, but also on the internet, and on cable television.

Some do.  Others do not.

3) They want to continue the "war on drugs."

There are a GREAT many non-social conservatives that want the war on drugs to continue.

4) They support English as the "official language" of the United States.

Given the problems of countries like Canada that have plural official languages, It is a great idea.

5) They want to ban gay marriage and plural marriage.

And the problem with that is?

6) They support government restrictions on strip clubs.

Only on the local level.  It is not a federal issue

7) They support immigration quotas to assure that we don't have "too many" immigrants.

Just about every country in the world restricts immigration.  It has nothing to do with social conservatives.

 They support Christian religious displays (such as a creche or cross or the Ten Commandments) in government buildings and on government property.

The founding fathers had no problem with them.  Should we look at the original intent of the writers of the constitution, as you have often advocated.

9) They not only oppose government spending on "sacriligeous art," they also oppose its public display even if the art was privately financed.

Most oppose ANY government spending on art.  If for no other reason than the government taxes should not be used to deliberately offend taxpayers.

10) They would criminalize consensual sex between homosexuals if they thought there was any possibility of doing so.

That is a war that has been fought and won.  Even my 103 year old mothers does not feel that it should be against the law.

11) They opposed allowing the construction of a mosque near ground zero, and believe local government should have the power to prevent mosques from building anywhere which might offend the local community.

Some of them did.  Others did not.  It was more a reaction to 911 than it was to mosques.

12) They have few if any problems with "The Patriot Act," or indefinite detention or rendition, so long as it is of "the right people."

The patriot act has nothing in it that refers to "the right people". 

13) They are not likely to complain about TSA, since the government needs to "keep us safe" from terrorists, and they like the idea of profiling in that effort, since they believe the "terrorists" are virtually always foreigners, particularly middle eastern male Muslims.

Anyone that doesn't believe that currently, 95% of those wanting to bring down aircraft are muslims is just living in his won little world of make believe.  It has nothing to do with social conservatives.

14) Very little about big government in general in the economic arena offends them, unless they happen to also have a true libertarian bent, something which is not at all required for social conservatives.

Most social conservatives I know are against big government in general.  The entire sentence applies more to economic conservatives, who love government handouts to businesses, much more to social conservatives.  The entire tax code is built around government interference with the economy.

ALMOST EVERY OBJECTION YOU HAVE RAISED RELATE TO THE BELIEFS OF LIBERTARIANS, NOT ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES.  THERE IS VERY LITTLE CONFLICE IN PRINCIPLES BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES.  IF ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES VOTE TOGETHER, THEY CAN WIN MOST NATIONAL ELECTIONS.  IF THEY ARE SPLIT, THEY CAN WIN VERY LITTLE.

LIBERTARIANS ARE LITTLE MORE THAN A PIMPLE ON THE ASS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 12:02:08 pm
By the way, Jes, I never saw your answer to Bill Sharp's question to you.  He said that your logic in the gay marriage issue would indicate that you would also be in favor of polygamy.  Is that accurate?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 09, 2012, 12:16:04 pm
I consider myself a social conservative, and I absolutely do NOT want prayer in public schools.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 12:30:21 pm
I have been associated with the anti abortion crowd for years, and I have met very few that want mandatory public prayers in schools. 

Until the Supreme Court invented the right of women to kill their unborn children, there was no such thing as social conservatives.  If this issue was returned to the States as it should be, the movement would largely go away.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ISF on May 09, 2012, 01:14:33 pm
The problem with the Republican Party is that the Libertarian Party has tried to usurp it, since they couldn't win anything in their own party.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 01:50:37 pm
There is a large overlap with the principles of the libertarians and those of the conservatives.  But there are also some substantial differences.  but libertarians, (and I lean towards many of their principles) are not large enough to elect their own candidates, although a few can coexist with Republican party, such as Ron Paul and his son.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 09, 2012, 02:19:49 pm
I'm not too big on guys who hang around in Washington for 35 years and don't even live in the state they're supposed to represent in Congress, but there's a lot in Richard Lugar's concession statement I found myself nodding in agreement with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/sen-richard-lugars-searing-concession-statement--read-it-here/2012/05/09/gIQAgLm2CU_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/sen-richard-lugars-searing-concession-statement--read-it-here/2012/05/09/gIQAgLm2CU_blog.html)

He's particularly right about this . . .

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 09, 2012, 02:22:53 pm
me too
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 02:28:15 pm
I am sick and tired of republicans that vote like democrats.  If I wanted someone in office that would vote like a democrat, I would vote for a democrat.

I have no problem with his votes for the Supreme Court Justices, since regardless of their politics, they are competent judges, which should be the only issue in that vote.  But anyone that would vote for TARP should not be in office, in my opinion.  I am not a Republican, and I think that it is foolish to refer to them as the "conservative" party.  There are so many republicans that vote for liberal policies that it blurs it's brand beyond recognition.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 09, 2012, 02:31:09 pm
But I think he's got a point that if you only obstruct you can't become part of the solution to anything.  The problem is true compromise isn't being practiced.  I'm willing to vote for this in exchange for you voting for something I want.  We're coercing each other into voting for crap.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 09, 2012, 02:42:48 pm
Better a crappy Republican than a Democrat.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 03:01:36 pm
I would rather a congressman obstruct really bad legislation than participate in passing something that is only a little bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2012, 05:51:02 pm
like the idea of profiling in that effort, since they believe the "terrorists" are virtually always foreigners, particularly middle eastern male Muslims.

If I'm not mistaken, those weren't lilly white Irishman piloting those planes (on 911)..

Two points:
1) While the 911 attacks may have been middle eastern male Muslims, the Oklahoma City bombing, which is the 2nd most deadly terrorist attack on US soil, was at the hands of Timothy McViegh, who some might think was not a foreigner, or a Muslim, or from the middle east, and that with a name like McVeigh he might even have a bit of Irish ancestory.  http://www.houseofnames.com/mcveigh-family-crest.

2) As I framed the issue, whether most of the "terrorists" are or are not "virtually always foreigners, particularly middle eastern Muslims" is irrelevant, since the question was whether someone was likely to support a larger and stronger central government, not whether it was good or bad for it to be larger or stronger, or whether if it were longer or stronger who it should be targeting -- those are separate questions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2012, 06:39:40 pm
dave, you tell me which positions I am wrong on regarding social conservatives:

1) They want school sanctioned and school-led prayer in public schools.

Which is worse - voluntary prayer in school or a socialist Federal Government?

I am genuinely stumped, davep, because, while this is the kind of response I might expect from, otto, it is not what I would expect from you.  The issue of school sanctioned and school-led prayer has nothing to do with "a socialist Federal Government," neither with its existence or its absence.  I truly have no clue whatsoever where you are coming from with that response.

2) They want government control over ****ography, not only magazines, but also on the internet, and on cable television.

Some do.  Others do not.

Some do?  Really?  Only "some"?  Probably well above 80% do.  You will even find some social conservatives who do not oppose gay marriage.  Not many, but "some." 

3) They want to continue the "war on drugs."

There are a GREAT many non-social conservatives that want the war on drugs to continue.

And that would also constitute an "intrusi(on) in some areas (beyond) marriage and abortion."

4) They support English as the "official language" of the United States.

Given the problems of countries like Canada that have plural official languages, It is a great idea.

It is not a question of whether it is a good idea or not.  It is a question of whether you were accurate in claiming that, "The vast majority of social conservatives do NOT want a larger, more intrusive government.  Many want it to continue to be as intrusive in some areas, such as marriage and abortion, but very little beyond that."


5) They want to ban gay marriage and plural marriage.

And the problem with that is?

I did not suggest there is anything right or wrong with it.  I am simply pointing out that it is one of the areas in which social conservatives support government intrusion into private lives which is at odds with the position of many economic conservatives.

6) They support government restrictions on strip clubs.

Only on the local level.  It is not a federal issue

It is still an intrusion in private lives which social conservatives support.

7) They support immigration quotas to assure that we don't have "too many" immigrants.

Just about every country in the world restricts immigration.  It has nothing to do with social conservatives.

Yes it does.  It is a position virtually all social conservatives take, whether they are social conservatives in the US, or social conservatives in Iran.

8) They support Christian religious displays (such as a creche or cross or the Ten Commandments) in government buildings and on government property.

The founding fathers had no problem with them.  Should we look at the original intent of the writers of the constitution, as you have often advocated.

Again, I am not trying to debate the wisdom or legality of the position, but merely pointing out that it is a government intrusion in private lives which social conservatives support.

9) They not only oppose government spending on "sacriligeous art," they also oppose its public display even if the art was privately financed.

Most oppose ANY government spending on art.  If for no other reason than the government taxes should not be used to deliberately offend taxpayers.

You address the first half of the sentence, which is not the point, and ignore the second, which is.

10) They would criminalize consensual sex between homosexuals if they thought there was any possibility of doing so.

That is a war that has been fought and won.  Even my 103 year old mothers does not feel that it should be against the law.

You ignore the second half of the sentence, which read, "if they thought there was any possibility of doing so."  The entire question is what social conservatives want which might constitute intrusive government policies into private lives.  I take it from your response that you do not really disagree with what I wrote, but you simply are saying social conservatives have finally realized they are not going to win the issue.

11) They opposed allowing the construction of a mosque near ground zero, and believe local government should have the power to prevent mosques from building anywhere which might offend the local community.

Some of them did.  Others did not.  It was more a reaction to 911 than it was to mosques.

Some?  Again, finding a couple who did not hardly alters my point, and what the reaction was to also does nothing to alter my point.

12) They have few if any problems with "The Patriot Act," or indefinite detention or rendition, so long as it is of "the right people."

The patriot act has nothing in it that refers to "the right people". 

Nor did I suggest that it does.... though most social conservatives have no problem with it, or with indefinite detention or rendition, both of which you ignored, because they believe they really are only being used and only WILL be used on "the right people."

13) They are not likely to complain about TSA, since the government needs to "keep us safe" from terrorists, and they like the idea of profiling in that effort, since they believe the "terrorists" are virtually always foreigners, particularly middle eastern male Muslims.

Anyone that doesn't believe that currently, 95% of those wanting to bring down aircraft are muslims is just living in his won little world of make believe.  It has nothing to do with social conservatives.

Again, this is not an effort to argue the merits of the position, but merely to point out that this is yet another area in which social conservatives support an intrusion into private lives, other than the very limited areas you listed.

14) Very little about big government in general in the economic arena offends them, unless they happen to also have a true libertarian bent, something which is not at all required for social conservatives.

Most social conservatives I know are against big government in general.  The entire sentence applies more to economic conservatives, who love government handouts to businesses, much more to social conservatives.  The entire tax code is built around government interference with the economy.

Let's just say we disagree here.

ALMOST EVERY OBJECTION YOU HAVE RAISED RELATE TO THE BELIEFS OF LIBERTARIANS, NOT ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES.

davep, re-read what I wrote.  Nothing was presented as an "objection" to anything, but instead merely as illustrations that your contention about social conservatives support "more intrusive government.... (only in) areas, such as marriage and abortion," was seriously inaccurate.

  THERE IS VERY LITTLE CONFLICE IN PRINCIPLES BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES.

Again, let's just say that we disagree there, as well as to disagree on the definition of "economic conservative."  I think of an "economic conservative" as someone who is libertarian on economic issues, while you write that "economic conservatives... love government handouts to businesses."

IF ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES VOTE TOGETHER, THEY CAN WIN MOST NATIONAL ELECTIONS.  IF THEY ARE SPLIT, THEY CAN WIN VERY LITTLE.

There are a fair number of what I would consider as economic conservatives (i.e. those leaning to libertarian positions on economic issues) who not only have no desire to see social conservatives win, but would without question rather see an open Marxist in office than to see that office in the hands of a social conservative.

LIBERTARIANS ARE LITTLE MORE THAN A PIMPLE ON THE ASS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

In the case of full spectrum libertarians, that may be true.  And it is also true in the Democratic party.  But the libertarian position in general is growing.  And whichever party embraces them, will win them, and will likely win a lot of elections.  They are a bit more than a pimple on the ass of the electorate.... at least a boil.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2012, 06:44:05 pm
By the way, Jes, I never saw your answer to Bill Sharp's question to you.  He said that your logic in the gay marriage issue would indicate that you would also be in favor of polygamy.  Is that accurate?

Is what accurate?

That you never saw my answer to Bill's question?  That my logic indicates I support polygamy?  Or that I support polygamy?

I suspect all of your questions would have been answered if you had not missed a few posts. http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politicsreligion-etc/?message=70662

And to respond in advance to the question you might ask after checking the link.  There is a world of difference between supporting something and believing that it should be legal.

I think it should be legal for you to go out into your back yard and to eat dogsh*t.  That does NOT mean I support the practice, think it would be a good idea, or would even contemplate doing so myself.... but if YOU want to do it, have at it.  And, no, that is NOT a bad comparison to the issue of plural marriage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2012, 06:47:42 pm
This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator.

There are a lot of us who would be perfectly happy with that since most legislative "achievements" are moves in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 08:40:58 pm
"I am genuinely stumped, davep, because, while this is the kind of response I might expect from, otto, it is not what I would expect from you.  The issue of school sanctioned and school-led prayer has nothing to do with "a socialist Federal Government," neither with its existence or its absence.  I truly have no clue whatsoever where you are coming from with that response."

If you are stumped, then you aren't paying attention.  The question at hand was whether the economic conservatives should work with the social conservatives instead of losing their votes and letting the democrats win and put into place their socialist agendas.  So it is a fair question.  Is it better to give them school prayer or whatever to win their votes, or let them stay home on election day and let the democrats win.

My point was that allowing school prayer does not contradict any precept of an economic conservative.  An economic conservative may also be a social liberal, but that is another issue.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 08:49:10 pm
Jes - your views on marriage seem rather inconsistent.   I could understand maintaining that there should be NO SUCH THING as a government sanctioned marriage, but if the government is going to be in the marriage business, banning a certain sort of marriage is no increase in government power than allowing that sort of marriage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2012, 09:12:32 pm
If you are stumped, then you aren't paying attention.  The question at hand was whether the economic conservatives should work with the social conservatives instead of losing their votes and letting the democrats win and put into place their socialist agendas.  So it is a fair question.  Is it better to give them school prayer or whatever to win their votes, or let them stay home on election day and let the democrats win.

That was YOUR question.  It was not mine.  I never said your question was not fair... just that it was out in lala land and made no sense.  No sense to the issue I was addressing.  Perhaps it did to yours, but I thought your question was dull and had moved on.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 09, 2012, 09:15:37 pm
dave, there is no inconsistency -- I made quite clear that to the maximum extent possible the government should get out of the marriage business.  And saying that because it might remain to some degree then banning a certain sort of marriage is no increase in power than allowing that sort of marriage is a bit disingenuous.  Allowing a person to do something and prohibiting a person from doing something are rather far apart.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2012, 09:40:17 pm
I have no problem with you going off on a tangent as long as you make clear that you are not responding to the original point. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 09, 2012, 10:56:54 pm
One man's tangent is another man's cosine.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2012, 05:49:56 am
I have no problem with you going off on a tangent as long as you make clear that you are not responding to the original point. 

And I have no problem with you having a problem.  I also like periods.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 10, 2012, 09:33:24 am
It's difficult to compare different polls, but if it's true Romney is narrowing the gap in Ohio, that's potentially huge.  It's hard to see Romney winning without carrying Ohio.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2012, 10:14:46 am
Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 10, 2012, 10:16:20 am
By the end of this election, a state like Ohio should either be similar to what national polls are showing or lean slightly Republican to what national polls are showing.  Cook PVI has Ohio as +1% Republican.  In 2008, Obama was 1% below his national percentage in Ohio, Bush in 2004 was almost even with his nationwide percentage, and Bush in 2000 won Ohio but lost the nationwide popular vote.

RCP is showing Obama up 4% in Ohio but up just 1.5% nationally, which suggests Ohio is doing 2.5% better for Obama than he's doing nationally.  Recent history, though, says Obama probably isn't going to finish 2.5% above his national percentage in Ohio. 

I just think what that tells you that it's just way too early to be reading too much into these state polls one way or the other.  People just aren't tuned in yet, and we don't know what conditions are going to be like 4 or 5 months from now.  More than likely, Romney's true standing in Ohio is where is he nationally, roughly 1.5% behind Obama right now.  When all is said and done, Ohio is probably going to mirror the overall nationwide vote or lean slightly Republican nationally.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 10, 2012, 11:14:10 am
Romney has to win Ohio, Virginia and Florida in order to have a reasonable chance to win.  None of the three are certain, but none are unlikely.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2012, 03:59:40 pm
Romney will end up winning by a wide enough margin that he could win without the electoral votes of any one of those three.  He will most likely win by a wide enough margin that he could win without the electoral votes of any two of them.

And that is if things just sort of muddle along as they are now.

If the problems in Europe bring another serious economic downturn in the next couple of months, and they may well, we are likely to see a landslide.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 10, 2012, 06:18:26 pm
I think PA, WI and IA will be in play as well this year.  NV could turn as well.  There are many possibilities. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 10, 2012, 06:33:09 pm
There are no possibilities.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 10, 2012, 06:40:41 pm
At least Romney has an outside chance of winning Mississippi, right Jeff?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 10, 2012, 06:57:48 pm
As long as he doesn't actually visit the state, yes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 10, 2012, 07:43:31 pm
From what I can tell, there isn't much chance of Romney winning Wisconsin in the upcoming election.  They may well elect another Republican senator, though.

If Scott Walker wins the recall election, Romney might have a shot.  But local polls aren't very encouraging on that score.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2012, 08:47:53 pm
I have no problem with his votes for the Supreme Court Justices, since regardless of their politics, they are competent judges, which should be the only issue in that vote.

Sorry, but anyone who would support (nominate for presidential candidates or confirm for Senate candidates) a Supreme Court justice, or even Federal Appellate Court judge, who was not a near certain vote against abortion would be in a very deep hole in getting my vote.

Saying someone is a "competent judge" who believes in manufacturing rights under the Roe v. Wade approach, or who is not offended enough by that decision serving to kill at least tens of thousands of unborn children a year to consider scrapping precedent on the issue is NOT, in my mind, a "competent judge."

Competence includes more than grammatically correct sentences, proper citation to case law and an ability to read and understand legal argument.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 10, 2012, 08:49:53 pm
Seems like the polling on Walker is somewhat encouraging for him.  RCP average has him up +1 right now, although I think the Marquette poll where he's +1 is probably the only one that's likely trustworthy.  Sounds like it's at least a coin flip.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/governor/wi/wisconsin_governor_recall_election_walker_vs_barrett-3056.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/governor/wi/wisconsin_governor_recall_election_walker_vs_barrett-3056.html)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 10, 2012, 08:51:19 pm
The president gets to nominate the judges that he feels are competent.  The senate should not pass judgement based upon politics.  That is the way it always was until the 1980's or so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 10, 2012, 08:51:53 pm
I'm kind of thinking like Robb, though.  The Walker recall election is going to say a lot.  If he's able to win the recall considering how much controversy he's gone through, I don't see any reason why Romney couldn't win that state.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 10, 2012, 08:56:01 pm
My next door neighbor is on the Republican party county board.  He says that their internal polling shows Walker behind by 5 points, after gaining two points in the last two weeks.  He is hopeful, but certainly not confident.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 10, 2012, 09:07:34 pm
I would be shocked if Romney were to win in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 10, 2012, 10:44:09 pm
The president gets to nominate the judges that he feels are competent.  The senate should not pass judgement based upon politics.  That is the way it always was until the 1980's or so.

Two points:

1) Why not?

2) Passing judgement based on the substantive judicial positions and legal philosophy is not at all the same as passing judgement on politics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 10, 2012, 10:56:21 pm
Those substantive judicial positions ARE political.  Which is why we can forecast which 4 judges will be on either side and have to guess what the ninth will do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 11, 2012, 12:23:49 pm
Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for the Mass. Senate, claimed that she was a Native American minority while on the staff at Harvard, because her great-great-great-grandmother MIGHT have been a Cherokee.

She explained that she did it so she could go to meetings and meet "other" minorities.

She didn't explain why, when she was on the staff in Pennsylvania, she also claimed to be a minority, and was awarded a $3,000 prize meant for minorities.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 11, 2012, 03:22:13 pm
Elizabeth Warren is coming across as such a POS that as a complete outsider looking in, and without any idea what the polls reflect, I would expect her not only to lose, but to drag down the top of the ticket with her.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 11, 2012, 03:56:11 pm
Except that she is running in Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 11, 2012, 04:03:14 pm
Interesting.  My neighbor says that polling done since the democratic primary show Walker in a dead heat.  As I understand it, that poll assumes a greater republican than democrat turnout.  Don't know how likely that is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2012, 07:57:23 am
Except that she is running in Massachusetts.

I didn't say I would expect her to lose in a landslide, but I really do expect her to lose, and she was a true liberal darling.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 16, 2012, 08:58:18 am
The Ricketts family helps an insurgent candidate win the Republican Senate primary in Nebraska.

Quote
A brutal $200,000 weekend television ad flight paid for by TD Ameritrade founder and Chicago Cubs co-owner Joe Ricketts that revisited Bruning’s questionable financial interests and cast a cloud over his character.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76367_Page2.html#ixzz1v2bEQeIz (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76367_Page2.html#ixzz1v2bEQeIz)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 02:41:49 pm
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474 (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474)

Romney is toast. In depth political analysis? Nope, just where the professional money is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 02:45:27 pm
"Professional": A person who secretly wishes Romney would win but is realistic enough to see a good hedge when she sees one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 16, 2012, 02:49:43 pm
LOL FDISK,  I remember when Intrade had Romney at 75% to win South Carolina. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 16, 2012, 02:50:24 pm
Who to believe, FD?

"    Obama can make this micro-issue the "Issue of the Media Day," and that diversion the Meme of the Week.  But when it comes down to it-- these are illusory victories. The real issue that all voters will face in November is this: Do I want to sign up for a repeat of the last four years or do I want a chance at something different?

    The Reagan-Carter race was, according to the polls, fairly close until the end, when people finally stopped thinking about mere politics and started thinking about the real question: Do the last four years represent the best I think I can do? Am I getting full service on my checks? The answer was no then, and it will be "no" again."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/04/16/gallup_romney_47_obama_45
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 02:53:37 pm
That's why they call it "gambling".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 02:55:13 pm
Speaking of which...here is what the real professionals are saying...
http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election (http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 03:00:10 pm
The Reagan-Carter race was, according to the polls, fairly close until the end,

I'm not talking about polls....or pundits...or TV talking heads...or Wall Street wannabee Intraders

I'm talking about overweight, cigar smoking, backroom bookies...you know...those guys.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 03:08:00 pm
If polls and pundits are to be believed, Alf Landon would have won the 1936 presidential election...instead of losing in the biggest landslide in history.

BUT...the bookies got it right that year. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 03:19:02 pm
"Double or nothing on dinner?"

You see, this is what I'm talking about. If Jes wins Dave pays for dinner. If Jes loses, Jes pays for dinner. Either way, Dave has to have dinner with Jes.  Where in the hell is the upside to that bet?

Which reminds me, Jes, I need legal advice.  I received a subpoena to testify in a civil case. The only signature on the subpoena is that of the opposing lawyer (evidently her client is being sued by my home owner's association...news to me...but I digress ).  I have ZERO information to provide, as far as I can tell, every member of the home owner's assoiation has been subpoena...I assume as some sort of "punishment".

Ordinarily speaking...as I know you don't necessarily know NM law...but does a lawyer have the authority to compel someone to attend court? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 16, 2012, 03:23:06 pm
Oh, like you and me.  Hand me another Miller Light.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on May 16, 2012, 03:43:29 pm
First of all, only amateurs drink Miller Lite. Secondly, you and and I are amateurs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 16, 2012, 03:48:50 pm
Professionals then must spell Lite correctly.  I see.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 16, 2012, 07:02:21 pm
Either way, Dave has to have dinner with Jes.  Where in the hell is the upside to that bet?

Which reminds me, Jes, I need legal advice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 17, 2012, 01:04:48 pm
Joe Ricketts is really starting to get involved in politics it seems like.

Quote
Race has suddenly become a flashpoint in the 2012 presidential race — with the Obama campaign accusing Mitt Romney of “reacting tepidly” to a secret plan that would play up Barack Obama’s race and his connections to controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades offered a relatively mild rebuke to a $10 million proposal to run a new super PAC blitz against Obama. The memo to attack Obama, prepared for TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, describes Obama’s effort to portray himself as a “metrosexual Black Abe Lincoln,” according to The New York Times.

-----------------

Ricketts, a Chicago-based investor, is trying to distance himself from the plan, saying it was part of an effort to solicit proposals — and would never see the light of day.

“Joe Ricketts is a registered independent, a fiscal conservative, and an outspoken critic of the Obama Administration, but he is neither the author nor the funder of the so-called ‘Ricketts Plan’ to defeat Mr. Obama that The New York Times wrote about this morning,” Brian Baker, who heads the Ricketts-backed Ending Spending super PAC, said in a statement on behalf of Ricketts.

“Not only was this plan merely a proposal … but it reflects an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects and it was never a plan to be accepted but only a suggestion for a direction to take. Mr. Ricketts intends to work hard to help elect a President this fall who shares his commitment to economic responsibility, but his efforts are and will continue to be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76444.html#ixzz1v9RzwKEq (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76444.html#ixzz1v9RzwKEq)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 17, 2012, 07:20:19 pm
Joe Ricketts is really starting to get involved in politics it seems like.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76444.html#ixzz1v9RzwKEq (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76444.html#ixzz1v9RzwKEq)

I don't think I have ever loved the Cubs more....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 21, 2012, 10:24:53 am
One thing I'm glad to see is that Craig James is getting his ass kicked in the Texas Senate primary.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/uttt-poll-runoff-prospects-loom-us-senate-races/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 21, 2012, 10:57:36 am
If he got the nomination, I'd vote Democratic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 21, 2012, 11:31:13 am
Wow!  James must be a raving lunatic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 21, 2012, 11:37:33 am
Who is Craig James, and why don't you like him?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 21, 2012, 11:41:49 am
He's that smarmy lying lowlife that got a college coach fired because he wouldn't play his kid.  Of course, that's only one side of the story, but I'm going with it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 21, 2012, 11:43:31 am
He's that tool who used to broadcast college football for ESPN (and I guess still is) who got Mike Leach fired at Texas Tech.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 21, 2012, 11:44:48 am
Hard to imagine that there could be another side to that story.  Unless his kid was a girl.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on May 23, 2012, 08:04:05 pm
The BBF skews politically right. Drives me nuts, but y'all are passionate Cubs' fan, an affliction I share, and my misery enjoys your company.
And but so most of you would never, ever, ever vote for Obama. But please do the world this favor: don't repeat the big f-ing lie that Obama has been some crazy spend-a-holic president to explain why you won't support him. It is categorically untrue, as the Wall Street Journal reported (the Wall Street Journal! no friend of Obama, that!):

“Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s,” writes Rex Nutting. “Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.” In his first term, Obama will have increased spending by 1.4 percent; in his last three years, George W. Bush increased annual spending by an average of 8.1 percent – and in Bush’s last fiscal year, 2009, spending jumped 17.9 percent. Republican deity Ronald Reagan increased spending an average of 8.7 percent in his first term.......After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4 percent annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5 percent from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars)."

I got this from Salon.com, which, like me, skews very much to the left:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/barack_obama_spendthrift/



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Ray on May 23, 2012, 08:40:08 pm
The BBF skews politically right. Drives me nuts, but y'all are passionate Cubs' fan, an affliction I share, and my misery enjoys your company.
And but so most of you would never, ever, ever vote for Obama. But please do the world this favor: don't repeat the big f-ing lie that Obama has been some crazy spend-a-holic president to explain why you won't support him. It is categorically untrue, as the Wall Street Journal reported (the Wall Street Journal! no friend of Obama, that!):

“Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s,” writes Rex Nutting. “Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.” In his first term, Obama will have increased spending by 1.4 percent; in his last three years, George W. Bush increased annual spending by an average of 8.1 percent – and in Bush’s last fiscal year, 2009, spending jumped 17.9 percent. Republican deity Ronald Reagan increased spending an average of 8.7 percent in his first term.......After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4 percent annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5 percent from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars)."

I got this from Salon.com, which, like me, skews very much to the left:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/barack_obama_spendthrift/





how do the numbers hold when omitting our money spent on wars in the middle east?  Could still be slow spending growth, I honestly don't know, but I would think that would raise the numbers significantly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on May 28, 2012, 11:38:40 pm
Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” Romney claims on his campaign Web site. This is utterly false. The truth is that spending has slowed markedly under Obama.

An analysis published last week by MarketWatch, a financial news Web site owned by Dow Jones & Co., compared the yearly growth of federal spending under presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, MarketWatch concluded that “there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”

Quite the contrary: Spending has increased at a yearly rate of only 1.4 percent during Obama’s tenure, even if you include some stimulus spending (in the 2009 fiscal year) that technically should be attributed to President George W. Bush. This is by far the smallest — I repeat, smallest — increase in spending of any recent president. (The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded the spending increase figure should have been 3.3 percent.)

In Bush’s first term, by contrast, federal spending increased at an annual rate of 7.3 percent; in his second term, the annual rise averaged 8.1 percent. Reagan comes next, in terms of profligacy, followed by George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and finally Obama, the thriftiest of them all.

The MarketWatch analysis was re-analyzed by the nonpartisan watchdogs at Politifact who found it “Mostly True” — adding the qualifier because some of the restraint in spending under Obama “was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.” Duly noted, and if Romney wants to claim credit for the GOP, he’s free to do so. But he’s not free to say that “federal spending has accelerated” under Obama, because any way you look at it, that’s a lie.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on May 29, 2012, 06:10:28 am
That article has been so debunked it is laughable.  The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.

"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn't account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2012, 06:36:06 am
So while on the policy-side  Obama wants to claim credit for saving GM with the bailout (something approved under Bush), one the budget side he wants to deny spending the money?

Why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 29, 2012, 06:48:01 am
Robb, I also think it is clever that Obamacare costs won't be a factor until 2013.  If factored now, the spending claim would be DOA.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 29, 2012, 10:34:37 am
Look - if you guys want to express your opinions about Obama, fine.  But it isn't fair to include facts in your posts.  That is an unfair advantage, since the other side HAS no facts to use.

We need to level the playing field here.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 29, 2012, 04:58:19 pm
If only people understood the facts, Romney would win in a landslide/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 29, 2012, 05:16:06 pm
If only people understood the facts, Romney would win in a landslide/

P2 coming to the Dark Side.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 29, 2012, 05:21:25 pm
If only people understood the facts, Romney would win in a landslide/

If people understood the facts, nobody would vote for either of these clowns.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2012, 05:32:42 pm
If only people understood the facts, Romney would win in a landslide/

He will.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 29, 2012, 05:40:56 pm
"Stomped like a narc at a biker rally"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 29, 2012, 08:58:34 pm
http://www.youtube.com/embed/VtVbUmcQSuk
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on May 31, 2012, 09:57:10 am
You know we have a problem when we measure our debt in the trillions, and the hot topic is the rate at which spending is INCREASING.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on May 31, 2012, 11:25:52 am
Romney has a real chance if he can take Ohio:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 31, 2012, 11:42:06 am
The one thing I'm seeing right now is all of these pollsters are giving Obama a few points more of an edge in almost all of the battleground states compared to what he's doing nationally.

That makes no sense to me.  By definition, these battleground states ought to be closely in line with what the national averages are, and actually most of the battleground states, such as Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, are usually +1 Republican or so.  In Ohio and Florida, Romney ought to be doing slightly better than his national polling numbers, instead of slightly worse which is what most polls seem to be showing.

Basically if the battleground states are showing Obama doing better than his national average, it either has to mean 1.) the reason the national race is tied is that the red states are even redder this year and the battleground states are all bluer or 2.) the state polling in battleground states is a bunch of bunk thus far.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 31, 2012, 11:46:22 am
The RCP average nationally for Obama is +1.8%, but in Ohio the RCP average is Obama +3.8%.

That shouldn't be happening.  Ohio is a Republican +1 PVI state.  If anything the polling in Ohio should be about dead even between the two.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 31, 2012, 11:56:58 am
The one thing I'm seeing right now is all of these pollsters are giving Obama a few points more of an edge in almost all of the battleground states compared to what he's doing nationally.

That makes no sense to me.  By definition, these battleground states ought to be closely in line with what the national averages are, and actually most of the battleground states, such as Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, are usually +1 Republican or so.  In Ohio and Florida, Romney ought to be doing slightly better than his national polling numbers, instead of slightly worse which is what most polls seem to be showing.

Basically if the battleground states are showing Obama doing better than his national average, it either has to mean 1.) the reason the national race is tied is that the red states are even redder this year and the battleground states are all bluer or 2.) the state polling in battleground states is a bunch of bunk thus far.

Another thing to remember is that both sides dump a great deal of their money into the battleground states.  In Florida, we say Obama ads on a hourly basis on most of the radio and many TV stations.  This was going on long before it was clear that Romney was the Republican candidate.  Up until recently, Obama had a substantial lead in contributions, and could flood the airwaves.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on May 31, 2012, 12:58:59 pm
Even usually accurate polls have limited value this far from the election. 

One state that many of you are putting solidly in Romney's column is Arizona.   That's more than a little premature.    The Republicans have a couple candidates going for retiring Senator Jon Kyl's seat.  They are running the usual negative ads against each other while former U.S. Surgeon General and very popular Democrat Richard Carmona is waiting to take on the winner.  Some of "the experts" predict that Carmona's coattails could be very long and influence presidential voting.

http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/media/news-events/poll-obama-vs.-romney-a-toss-up-in-arizona (http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/media/news-events/poll-obama-vs.-romney-a-toss-up-in-arizona)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 31, 2012, 01:18:49 pm
Carmona's starting out as a sizeable underdog in that race, though.  Jeff Flake is up by 13 points in the most recent PPP poll, which leans Democrat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/arizona_senate_race.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on May 31, 2012, 01:48:15 pm
Carmona has yet to air a single TV ad or put out one of the "all-important" lawn signs.

Tucson used to limit political lawn signs to private property but changed that this year.  You now see them even where they block your vision as you look to see if there is any traffic coming on a cross street.  It won't be long before they're even allowed on stop signs, etc.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on May 31, 2012, 01:50:17 pm
There are Lawns in Arizona?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on May 31, 2012, 01:56:07 pm
Of course there are lawns in Arizona.

Both of them are in Mesa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 31, 2012, 01:56:11 pm
One blade of grass next to a pebble = Lawn
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on May 31, 2012, 01:59:27 pm
There is a local company that sells artificial turf designed to look like a lawn.  I misunderstood one of their ads and went to take a look.  It was $6.00/sq ft, not $6.00/sq yd.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 31, 2012, 03:06:17 pm
Great deal if it's 6 bucks a yard...yeah, my yard goes down yonder to the corner there by the signal.  Here's my six bucks.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 31, 2012, 03:27:54 pm
Romney will take Ohio.

With a sitting president running for re-election, those who are undecided ultimately break overwhelmingly for the challenger, unless the challenger makes an utter as* of himself at the last minute.  If after more than three years of watching Obama in office voters are undecided about Obama and are not yet sold on him, they are not going to vote for him.

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on May 31, 2012, 06:49:04 pm
Romney will be stomped like a narc at a biker rally.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 01, 2012, 08:54:30 am
Today's jobs report is a disaster.  No one expected it to be this bad.  What a disaster this President has been.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 01, 2012, 09:11:07 am
Today's jobs report is a disaster.  On one expected it to be this bad.  What a disaster this President has been.

So what does Obama do?

Meet with his economic advisers to come up with a plan to fix things?

Meet with Congressional leaders to come up with a plan to fix things?

Meet with his cabinet to come up with a plan to fix things?

Meet with his speechwriters to draft a speech to ANNOUNCE a plan to fix things?

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/05/31/obama-hold-fundraisers-day/

Yup.

Six fundraisers today.

Good thing to know the prez has his priorities right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 01, 2012, 09:13:16 am
I'm surprised he's not at another rally with college students, myself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on June 01, 2012, 09:16:09 am
Axelrod attacked Romney for being 47th out 50 on job creation in MA.  Problem is the unemployment rate in MA was 5.3% when Mitt started and 4.7% when he left.  What would this country be like with 4.7% unemployment?  We won't know until O is gone.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 01, 2012, 11:04:35 am
Craig James is such a tool.

Quote
Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight

Craig James' campaign video highlighted his performance in Super Bowl XX. Fact check: he had 1 yard on 5 carries.

http://bit.ly/ofLWzH
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 05, 2012, 09:52:08 pm
It looks like Walker is going to win by about 15 points or more. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 06, 2012, 09:16:27 am
It looks like Walker is going to win by about 15 points or more. 

CNN had one of those "reactions to the Wisconsin election" stories on this morning, and the first person they interviewed was this guy who looked like he came straight from an Occupy protest.  He was in tears about how democracy died in Wisconsin last night. 

Uh, no it didn't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 06, 2012, 09:34:53 am
I saw that.  His big complaint was that they were outspent 34M to 4M.  I saw different numbers, but the exit polling was interesting.  Even union people were voting for Walker because they felt the recall was wrong.  The idea that majority rules and you get rid of people that got elected because you don't like them is abhorrent to most, I guess.  Most polling showed that this has little effect on where WI stands with Obama in the fall, but we'll see.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on June 06, 2012, 10:39:48 am
I bet him and Chris Christie are near the top of many dead pool lists
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 06, 2012, 11:54:28 am
What is a dead pool list?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on June 06, 2012, 11:57:54 am
Apparently there are no limits on political skullduggery.  There are reports of a massive Robo call Monday night telling voters their signature on the recall  petition counted as their vote and they did not have to go to the polls.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77061.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on June 06, 2012, 12:08:38 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_pool

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on June 07, 2012, 06:54:29 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/06/wisconsin-authorities-investigating-death-threats-tweeted-to-governor-scott/?test=latestnews

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 07, 2012, 06:58:58 am
otto?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: chifaninva on June 07, 2012, 07:32:36 am
Re-birth, twice!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 12, 2012, 04:29:01 pm
Drudge Report has a link to an article about North Dakota voting on completely abolishing property taxes in the state, and it's accompanied by a nice little picture of a patriotic American flag.

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbTUGxK8s2Vta2CscdPa4bneqk271KYblHMLFWj0rKK5QfDfcH)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/north-dakota-voters-consider-ending-property-tax.html?hp

I'm pretty conservative fiscally, but I don't see what's so wonderful, patriotic and American about something like that.  The government has to raise some money to be able to do stuff most people agree it ought to do, like fund roads, policemen, firefighters, schools, etc. 

I'm assuming most of these people who would like to abolish the property tax in the state probably wouldn't mind getting rid of their state income tax too.  If you get rid of most forms of taxation, how do they expect to fund things the government should be doing?  (I noticed in the story the people in favor of the proposal mentioned the government should get plenty of revenue from oil royalties to make up for eliminating the property tax.  That's all well and good, but if North Dakota becomes a boom economy because of oil and draws more people into the state, will oil royalties alone be enough for the government to provide all the services it needs to provide for the extra people coming into the state?)

Seems like anti-tax people are becoming as nutty and as shortsighted as big government people.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 12, 2012, 05:17:08 pm
The movement is North Dakota isn't exactly anti-tax.

The state is bringing in an enormous amount of taxes from the oil boom that is going on up there.  The vote going on is to replace the property tax with this oil taxes already coming in.  The philosophy behind it is that if you increase the amount of money available to a government, they are going to spend it.  By limiting the amount of money available to politicians, you limit the amount of foolish spending that can take place and return the money to the people that earned it in the first place.

There is a flaw in the thinking of those behind the initiative, and it is why it is likely to fail.  They want to do it by constitutional amendment, transferring responsibility for these taxes from the local distracts to the state.  This does two things.  It takes education out of the hands of the local districts, and it places total reliance upon taxation of oil revenues, which might fail in the future.

Other than that, the thought that government should be restricted to spending only on those things that it SHOULD spend in on is hardly a nutty idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 12, 2012, 05:19:48 pm
It doesn't sound like it will pass, which is a good thing.

I, too, wondered at showing an American flag in connection with the story - hoping it's more a symbol of democracy at work; the idea that people can put this kind of stuff up for a vote in the first place is pretty cool just on the premise of it, even though the particular idea in this case is rather short sighted.

On the flip side, the notion that you could lose a house that's paid off due to an inability to pay property taxes is also a little troublesome. Personally, I'd like to see most taxation be of the consumption variety. Put it all in once place so people realize how much they are actually being taxed, and tax people in a way that encourages good financial behavior. In this day of more credit cards than we have room for in our wallets, it would be nice to encourage fiscal restraint.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 12, 2012, 05:23:42 pm
I would hate to have the government go even further in encouraging what the government thinks is "good financial behavior".  Not just because the government has no "good financial behavior" of it's own.  But also because the only one that should decide what is "good financial behavior" is the guy that earned the money in the first place.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 12, 2012, 05:35:48 pm
They have to tax somehow.

Do you disagree that financial restraint would be prudent?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on June 12, 2012, 06:01:51 pm
Quote
But also because the only one that should decide what is "good financial behavior" is the guy that earned the money in the first place.

What if I want to use mine to buy marijuana?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 12, 2012, 06:47:48 pm
The only truly patriotic Americans are those who believe that the average citizen is drastically over taxed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 12, 2012, 06:50:36 pm
Ignoring the sarcasm, should we only be concerned if "the average citizen" is overtaxed?

I mean, so long as taxes are too high on someone else (or at least on someone who is not an "average citizen) it shouldn't bother us?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 12, 2012, 06:52:11 pm
The only truly patriotic Americans are those who believe that all citizens are drastically overtaxed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 12, 2012, 07:04:54 pm
They have to tax somehow.

Do you disagree that financial restraint would be prudent?

Was there anything in my post that indicated that I was against financial restraint?  The law is partly intended to do just that.  Unfortunately, I doubt that it would work.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 12, 2012, 07:07:31 pm
What if I want to use mine to buy ****?

I don't know what **** is, but if it is legal, it is nobody's business but yours (and your family) if you buy it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 12, 2012, 07:08:56 pm
As long as the government is using our money to do things that they shouldn't, or are not authorized by the Constitution, then somebody is overtaxed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2012, 07:25:01 am
As long as the government is using our money to do things that they shouldn't, or are not authorized by the Constitution, then somebody is overtaxed.

What kind of simple-minded nonsense is that?

If the people, through their elected representatives want it, then government should do it.  Simple as that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 13, 2012, 11:56:34 am
Even though I suspect that sarcasm was involved in that post, actually, I don't dispute the above in most cases at the state and local level.

But that was not the issue in the North Dakota elections.  It was not to reduce spending, and it was not to reduce taxation.  It was meant to move the tax burden from property owners to the oil industry.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 13, 2012, 01:25:17 pm
Rasmussen showing Romney ahead in Wisconsin.  It's hard to imagine Obama getting reelected without carrying Wisconsin.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2012, 01:26:39 pm
Even though I suspect that sarcasm was involved in that post, actually, I don't dispute the above in most cases at the state and local level.

So Jim Crow laws were fine?

Before them, slavery was fine?

Before the revolution, burning witches at the stake was fine?

You are quite right that there was sarcasm involved in my post.

Majority rule, without limitations on the actions of the majority, and without procedural safeguards in addition to substantive prohibitions on the exercise of majority will, is often far worse than an absolute dictatorship.  With a single tyrannical dictator, you just need a good marksman, or a cook to slip him some poison, to get rid of him.  Hard to knock off a tyrannical majority.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 13, 2012, 02:09:59 pm
So Jim Crow laws were fine?

Before them, slavery was fine?

Before the revolution, burning witches at the stake was fine?

You are quite right that there was sarcasm involved in my post.

Majority rule, without limitations on the actions of the majority, and without procedural safeguards in addition to substantive prohibitions on the exercise of majority will, is often far worse than an absolute dictatorship.  With a single tyrannical dictator, you just need a good marksman, or a cook to slip him some poison, to get rid of him.  Hard to knock off a tyrannical majority.

Of course, since we were talking about government spending, you naturally restricted your response to government spending items.

But even so, the operative word, was "most".  Did "most" state and local laws involve burning witches or Jim Crow laws?

Majority rule concerning spending and taxation should be pretty much unrestricted for state and local entities, as long as they do not violate constitutional liberties or other constitutional limitations.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2012, 03:25:28 pm
Majority rule concerning spending and taxation should be pretty much unrestricted for state and local entities, as long as they do not violate constitutional liberties or other constitutional limitations.

That's a pretty significant modification to your first comment.

Majority rule is a long way from inherently good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 13, 2012, 03:32:14 pm
I made the foolish assumption that responses would be limited to those who bothered to understand the context of the discussion.  Since we were talking about government spending, it never occured to me that I had to include caveats for laws that had nothing to do with government spending.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 13, 2012, 03:35:15 pm
Best not to leave any loopholes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2012, 03:36:02 pm
dave, the same reasoning applies to decisions on government spending.

You can quite easily have a majority decide to tax the earnings of a minority and then distribute those tax dollars among the majority in what is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth.

That is indefensible.  And it is what is happening right now to a very large degree at the federal level, and in some states at the state level.

I was following the conversation, and understood the context of it.  And my comments apply to that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 13, 2012, 04:02:18 pm
That is why I used the term "most"  I doubt that redistribution of the wealth by state and local governments comprise most of their spending.  And the specific subject of the discussion, eliminating property taxes and replacing them with sales taxes that were being increased greatly by the discovery of oil in the state, certainly has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2012, 04:14:03 pm
dave, by that standard "most" any laws are good laws and should be unrestricted.  MOST laws of the Hitler regime were just fine.  The qualification "most" is rather meaningless in discussions of what government should or should not do, or what it should or should not be allowed to do.

You now want to restrict the discussion to taxation, and toss spending, even though earlier you were expressly including that:
I made the foolish assumption that responses would be limited to those who bothered to understand the context of the discussion.  Since we were talking about government spending, it never occured to me that I had to include caveats for laws that had nothing to do with government spending.

And even if limited to taxation, my earlier example shows how majority rule, with no limitations can be a problem in that area, when you have a majority deciding to have all of the taxes paid by a minority.  (Again, very close to what we are seeing at the federal level.)

My sole point has been that simply deferring to the majority, and saying the majority should be free to do whatever it wants, is mistaken.  And it doesn't matter whether you are talking about taxes, spending, criminal laws or laws classifying folks into groups for any variety of reasons.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 13, 2012, 04:39:54 pm

And even if limited to taxation, my earlier example shows how majority rule, with no limitations can be a problem in that area, when you have a majority deciding to have all of the taxes paid by a minority.  (Again, very close to what we are seeing at the federal level.)


Indeed very close to what we see at the federal level, and for that matter, probably close to what we see on a local level.  In most cities, I suspect that the majority of citizens do not own property, and thus do not pay property tax.  The majority forces this upon the minority.  And while it may or may not be good policy, it is certainly withing the scope and rights of government as contemplated by our constitutions written by our founding fathers.  In fact, almost all taxes paid immediately after the revolution were levied by the majority on the minority.  Just as is the case right now.  In some cases, constitutional rights could trump what the majority wants (if for instance, the majority decided to tax only Jews), but in the vast majority of cases, the majority (no pun intended) rules.

And although I am not familiar with all the laws passed by the Nazi Government, I suspect that the vast majority of THOSE (zoning laws, speed limit laws, and the other trivial laws that constitute the vast majority of government actions) were perfectly reasonable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 13, 2012, 05:29:22 pm
In most cities, I suspect that the majority of citizens do not own property, and thus do not pay property tax.

While property taxes are by no means paid equally by everyone, they are paid on a much more equitable basis than most people think.  Even those who rent will effectively pay property taxes when they pay their rent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 15, 2012, 09:52:13 am
Obama will be giving young, law abiding illegals who were brought here as children work permits so that they are no longer deported.

Personally, I agree with the policy wholeheartedly, but the cynic in me screams election year stunt. It's also convenient to bypass congress in this act of law making, but that's nothing new. Both sides have done that for a while, for better or worse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2012, 12:31:03 pm
Obama will be giving young, law abiding illegals who were brought here as children work permits so that they are no longer deported.

Personally, I agree with the policy wholeheartedly, but the cynic in me screams election year stunt. It's also convenient to bypass congress in this act of law making, but that's nothing new. Both sides have done that for a while, for better or worse.

Congress needs to reassert its authority in a wide range of areas.... but they won't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 15, 2012, 02:21:40 pm
The simplest way to do it would be to require all Executive Orders to be approved by a majority of both houses before they could go into effect.

I agree.  It will never happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 15, 2012, 02:24:06 pm
That brings up a question that I have never seen answered.

Right now, Senate rules require a 60 vote majority for closure.  Could a law, passed by both houses and signed by the President, require that the Senate bring certain issues to a vote without this 60 votes being required?  Or can the Senate make it's rules in spite of such a law?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2012, 02:36:45 pm
That brings up a question that I have never seen answered.

Right now, Senate rules require a 60 vote majority for closure.  Could a law, passed by both houses and signed by the President, require that the Senate bring certain issues to a vote without this 60 votes being required?  Or can the Senate make it's rules in spite of such a law?

The Senate does make its own rules, but if such legislation passed, it would almost certainly trump the rules.

But any effort to pass such legislation would be quite misguided and would further disrupt the institutional balances of power built into the Constitution, a tremendous erosion of which was the 17th Amendment, creating direct election for members of the Senate.

The Senate was created as a legislative chamber where bills were to die, unless they were absolutely needed and served the interests of much more than a simple majority.  Eliminate the the 60 vote requirement and the Senate will no longer serve as much of a brake for anything.

But COULD it be done?  I believe so, though the Supreme Court might well refuse to address the issue and brush it aside as a purely political question, the type the Court is not suited to resolve.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 15, 2012, 02:38:21 pm
The simplest way to do it would be to require all Executive Orders to be approved by a majority of both houses before they could go into effect.

I agree.  It will never happen.

Far worse are all of the legislative schemes which create agencies to which executive or rule-making (legislative) authority is given.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 20, 2012, 01:15:06 pm
A question about Congressional hearings.

I spent most of my working life working in the food industry.  Common in the food industry are trade secrets.  A company could be destroyed if the secret recipes became public.  The most famous of them is the secret formula for Coca Cola.

Suppose that Congress was investigation the food industry.  Could they supena Coca Cola execs and force them to disclose their secret formula.  Congressional subcommittees are not well known for keeping secrets, even in closed hearings.

Could the execs be forced to reveal the secret?  They couldn't claim fifth amendment protection since no criminal actions could be involved.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 20, 2012, 01:15:42 pm
Far worse are all of the legislative schemes which create agencies to which executive or rule-making (legislative) authority is given.

Of course, those should also have to be approved by an up or down majority of each house.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 20, 2012, 01:24:01 pm
I've often wondered about that KFC, Coca-Cola, secret recipe schtick.  I have a feeling that Pepsi knows exactly what's in Coca-Cola, and if you've ever tasted Coke from a can, bottle, and fountain, even Coke doesn't always taste like Coke.  And now there are umpteen varieties of Coke all of which taste close to the Real Thing.  I believe that if a competitor wanted the secret recipe there are fifty labs in fifty states that could do an analysis in 3 or 4 hours.

Like one of my dad's favorite joke: he made some homemade beer one time that was very good.  Unfortunately, he forgot some of the ingredients and couldn't duplicate it, so he sent his last bottle to the agriculture laboratory.  A week later he got a letter that said, "We're sorry to inform you that your horse has diabetes."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 20, 2012, 01:33:57 pm
Aha.  I may actually be right about something!

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/formula.asp
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2012, 02:08:34 pm
Could the execs be forced to reveal the secret?  They couldn't claim fifth amendment protection since no criminal actions could be involved.

You are correct, and your concerns about Congress leaking such things are well-founded.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on June 20, 2012, 02:10:23 pm
Quote
believe that if a competitor wanted the secret recipe there are fifty labs in fifty states that could do an analysis in 3 or 4 hours.

This is one of those things that sounds like it should be easier than it is.  There are labs who can answer the question "I think this stuff has X in it.  Can you please confirm it and tell me how much X it has in it?"  Plenty of those.  But to answer the question "What is this stuff?  Please give me the recipe so that I can recreate it" would actually be pretty hard.  It wouldn't surprise me to find out that there are no commercial labs who could do that for you.  They could maybe get the main ingredients, but when one of the ingredients in the list is coca extract--that has hundreds of components on its own.  (And how they do the extraction makes a difference, because most of what you get when you extract coca is ****, and they don't include that anymore.   But I'm pretty sure that Coke stopped including coca extract in the early 90s--about the time of the first New Coke/Old Coke thing).  Really, really hard.

More than you wanted to know about organo-analytical chemistry, but it's close to home.  Lesson over.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2012, 02:17:33 pm
Aha.  I may actually be right about something!

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/formula.asp

If Curt ever did much cooking he might know that a list of ingredients is seldom all that is involved in a recipe.  I believe the ingredient list you can find on the side of any can of the stuff.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 20, 2012, 02:26:42 pm
Scopes article is probably accurate, but does not exactly address the point. 

By the way, I used to purchase product from Stepan (not decocainized cocoa leaf).  It is true that they would probably not sell that essence, but it would be very easy for another company to secure the necessary permits to import the product.  The reason no one has done so is because Coke is the only one that uses it, and they would not buy it from a new company.

As the article says, several companies have made a match for coke, and it is only the marketing power of Coke that makes it a winner.  But that is the point of my question.  If Coke were to be forced to make their "secret" public (and giving it to a congressional committee would essentially be making it public, they would no longer be able to capitalize on the belief that Coke is somehow unique.  The damage to their marketing efforts would be enormous.

So the question remains, could congress force them to give them the formula?

By the way, it is quite easy to tell the difference between Coke (or any carbonated drink) that has been stored in a can or plastic bottle, as opposed to a glass bottle.  The difference stems from the fact that the carbonization is better contained in a bottle, and has a sharper taste.

At the soda fountain, the difference is even greater.  While Coke can control the composition of the syrup, it can not standardize the amount of carbonated water that the "Soda Jerk" or bartender combines with the syrup.  Thus every glass of fountain coke (or other drink) will differ one from another.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 20, 2012, 02:34:43 pm
Ruh-roh.

“If the attorney general sat down and discussed it with the president, he probably doesn’t want the Congress and the public to know that,” Napolitano said.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/20/judge-napolitano-on-fast-and-furious-documents-executive-privilege-only-applies-if-the-president-was-personally-involved/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 21, 2012, 10:44:31 am
Remember when the supporters of ObamaCare insisted that there would be no death panels, pointing to England and saying, after all, there were no death panels there?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yRTkXbxn


Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year

    Professor says doctors use 'death pathway' to euthenasia of the elderly
    Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
    Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial 'care pathway'
    Pensioner admitted to hospital given treatment by doctor on weekend shift

By Steve Doughty

PUBLISHED: 18:08 EST, 19 June 2012 | UPDATED: 08:20 EST, 21 June 2012

NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.

He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.

It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.

There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.

He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.

Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.

He said this showed that claims they had hours or days left are ‘palpably false’.

In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift.
 
Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the LCP.

‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance,’ he said.

‘His seizures came under control and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family,’ he said.

Professor Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

He said: ‘The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.

‘Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.

‘Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.

‘Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically.

This determination in the LCP leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The personal views of the physician or other medical team members of perceived quality of life or low likelihood of a good outcome are probably central in putting a patient on the LCP.’

He added: ‘If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths.’

The LCP was developed in the North West during the 1990s and recommended to hospitals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2004.

Medical criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway were voiced nearly three years ago.

Experts including Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, Surrey, warned of ‘backdoor euthanasia’ and the risk that economic factors were being brought into the treatment of vulnerable patients.

In the example of the 71-year-old, Professor Pullicino revealed he had given the patient another 14 months of life by demanding the man be removed from the LCP.

Professor Pullicino said the patient was an Italian who spoke poor English, but was living with a ‘supportive wife and daughter’. He had a history of cerebral haemorrhage and subsequent seizures.

Professor Pullicino said: ‘I found him deeply unresponsive on a Monday morning and was told he had been put on the LCP. He was on morphine via a syringe driver.’ He added: ‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance.’

The patient’s extra 14 months of life came at considerable cost to the NHS and the taxpayer, Professor Pullicino indicated.

He said he needed extensive support with wheelchair, ramps and nursing.

After 14 months the patient was admitted to a different hospital with pneumonia and put on the LCP. The man died five hours later.

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘The Liverpool Care Pathway is not euthanasia and we do not recognise these figures. The pathway is recommended by NICE and has overwhelming support from clinicians – at home and abroad – including the Royal College of Physicians.

‘A patient’s condition is monitored at least every four hours and, if a patient improves, they are taken off the Liverpool Care Pathway and given whatever treatments best suit their new needs.’
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 26, 2012, 09:02:25 am
E tu?

http://news.yahoo.com/jimmy-carter-accuses-u-widespread-abuse-human-rights-154057442--abc-news-politics.html

Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread Abuse of Human Rights'
ABC NewsBy Amy Bingham | ABC News – 22 hrs ago

A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the "widespread abuse of human rights" by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.

Jimmy Carter, America's 39 th president, denounced the Obama administration for "clearly violating" 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the "United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights."

"Instead of making the world safer, America's violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends," Carter wrote.

While the total number of attacks from unmanned aircraft, or drones, and the resulting casualties are murky, the New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan alone 265 drone strikes have been executed since January 2009 . Those strikes have killed at least 1,488 people, at least 1,343 of them considered militants, the foundation estimates based on news reports and other sources.

In addition to the drone strikes, Carter criticized the current president for keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, where prisoners "have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers."

The former president blasted the government for allowing "unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications."

Want more off-the-cuff politics? Check out OTUS on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @OTUSNews.

He also condemned recent legislation that gives the president the power to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely, although a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect for any suspects not affiliated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration," Carter said.

While Carter never mentioned Obama by name, he called out "our government" and "the highest authorities in Washington," and urged "concerned citizens" to "persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 28, 2012, 09:51:30 am
Chief Justice Roberts seems to assert that the mandate component of the new health care law is constitutional under the provisions of the tax clause.  On what basis does the minority disagree?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 09:57:03 am
My guess is that they disagree based on the fact that Obama was adamant it was NOT a tax.

Majority was willing to recast the law in a manner that was specifically in disagreement with the way the law makers wrote the legislation in the first place.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 10:25:46 am
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the election. Obama's signature legislation stands. Romney now gets to add largest tax increase in American history to his quiver.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 10:41:22 am
Hard to figure how this will play out.  If the economy re-tanks because of business fear about how this is going to hurt them, it could actually hurt Obama.  If the court had ruled against Obama, Obama could fight to restore it, making it a major issue.  I think it will boil down to the economy now, and irony.  His major legislation might hurt him.  We'll see.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 10:43:07 am
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the election. Obama's signature legislation stands. Romney now gets to add largest tax increase in American history to his quiver.

Honestly, I don't think it really changes that much at all.  People knew they were going to have to pay a penalty if they didn't comply with the mandate, whether it's called a "tax", a "penalty", or whatever.  Regardless of what it's called, people don't seem to be all that moved by it, and Obama is still getting around 2% more of the vote than Romney right now.

I think the only thing that changes is that Republicans really can't say Obama made an unconstitutional power grab with the mandate anymore, so from that perspective, it's a PR victory for Obama. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 10:45:59 am
That's what I mean about the economy, JR.  I don't think people will for or against Obamacare.  They will vote for their pocketbook.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 10:50:00 am
That's what I mean about the economy, JR.  I don't think people will for or against Obamacare.  They will vote for their pocketbook.

Yep I agree.  That's what people always do anyway.

I mean Obamacare may not be especially popular, but it seems like the only people who are really angered by it or strongly motivated to get rid of it are people who were going to vote for Romney regardless.  I doubt the ruling does anything to change that. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 am
Does anyone here understand the constitutional issues?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 10:54:28 am
Actually if anything, now that the Supreme Court says it isn't unconstitutional, that's probably going to help Obamacare's approval ratings a little bit.  I imagine quite a few of the people who have been disapproving it in polls have been doing it on constitutional grounds but may like it or at least not strongly object to it on policy grounds. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 11:01:19 am
I still think parts of it will be repealed as they become more obvious.  This happened to Social Security and other unpopular legislation like Prohibition.  We aren't locked in this country to something that doesn't work.  There are death panels built into this thing.  They aren't called that, of course, and, of course, many will deny that's their function, but as soon as people see them function I am confident they will legislated out.

I remember Nancy Pelosi's hysterical comment about "we have to vote for it to find out what's in it."  Actually, as funny as that is, it makes sense.  Some of this we will have to see work to see IF it works.  A panel, for example, made up of non-doctors to decide the viability of a patient with a brain clot doesn't make sense.  After a few disastrous episodes and thousands of neurosurgeons screaming, Congress will change that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 11:01:54 am
Does anyone here understand the constitutional issues?

Basically my understanding is that the mandate is not constitutional based on the Commerce Clause but it is constitutional based on Congress's power to tax. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 11:07:06 am
The full decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/supreme-court-health-care-decision-text.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 11:07:56 am
Does anyone here understand the constitutional issues?

Which ones?  What is your question about them?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 11:09:59 am
Yep I agree.  That's what people always do anyway.

I mean Obamacare may not be especially popular, but it seems like the only people who are really angered by it or strongly motivated to get rid of it are people who were going to vote for Romney regardless.  I doubt the ruling does anything to change that.

But it may change turnout.

If it had been stricken, those who wanted it would have been sure to vote for Obama to get it, or something similar back.  Now that it is allowed to stand, those who oppose it will be sure to vote for Romney to get rid of it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on June 28, 2012, 11:11:54 am
Time for Romney to start focusing on the Medicare cuts that are in the funding mechanism for this legislation. I wonder how many seniors are unaware of those cuts?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 11:25:58 am
Keys, for some reason I don't expect the Republicans to run a very bright, Clinton '92-like campaign.  Too many nuts with money, like Trump, still want to follow the birth certificate path, too many Tea Party people who want to cut taxes but not services, too many who are focused on the wrong issues.  Nor do I think Romney's team will pick the most vulnerable parts of Obamacare.

You look at all the cutesy emails that you get, and all the attacks on Obama are on dumbshit stuff and few really point out how things are going downhill.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 28, 2012, 11:32:45 am
too many Tea Party people who want to cut taxes but not services

My understanding of most Tea Party people is that they want to cut BOTH taxes and services.

Not THEIR services, of course.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 11:38:43 am
My understanding of most Tea Party people is that they want to cut BOTH and services.

Not THEIR services, of course.

Yes, what I meant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 11:42:58 am
I think Obama's message that the rich aren't paying their fair share is going to hit home.

I'm a conservative who most often votes Republican, and I have rich relatives, but I'm getting tired of hearing how it is that sector creating the jobs, etc.  We've heard that since the Bush cuts went in 10 years ago.  Where are the jobs?  Where is the country benefiting from the fact that these folks have more money to spend?  We don't see them.  I think that will hit home more than anything the Republicans can offer.

To win, I think the Republican platform will have to give in on things like upper level tax reform and stuff, yet that's where their coffers are filled.  The Republican party is in a paradoxical battle.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 28, 2012, 11:47:40 am
Jes, does the minority have a strong argument that the mandate element is unconstitutional?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 28, 2012, 11:52:34 am
My guess is that the Supreme Court decision will hurt Obama in the polls (Obamacare is unpopular), but might help him in the election.  The latter is based on the idea that the prospect of losing something they are in line to get (or that many feel is a moral imperative) will be a greater incentive to vote than the fear of higher taxes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 02:14:09 pm
Basically my understanding is that the mandate is not constitutional based on the Commerce Clause but it is constitutional based on Congress's power to tax. 

JR, my understanding is that there's a little more finesse to the argument than that. My understanding is that the mandate isn't constitutional, period. However, the courts recognize the power of congress to tax, and are willing to recast the mandate as a tax in order not to stand in the way of monumental legislation.

The majority opinion wasn't exactly ringing in its endorsement. My understanding is that it basically reads as a washing of hands.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 02:22:58 pm
Jes, does the minority have a strong argument that the mandate element is unconstitutional?

I'll read the decision this evening and offer comment on it, but the minority AND Roberts all agreed that the mandate was not authorized under the Commerce Clause.  As I understand it, the four liberals all felt the mandate was authorized under the Commerce Clause and did not believe it was a tax.  And only Roberts considered it a tax and authorized under the taxing powers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 02:25:12 pm
JR, my understanding is that there's a little more finesse to the argument than that. My understanding is that the mandate isn't constitutional, period. However, the courts recognize the power of congress to tax, and are willing to recast the mandate as a tax in order not to stand in the way of monumental legislation.

The majority opinion wasn't exactly ringing in its endorsement. My understanding is that it basically reads as a washing I hands.

Yeah I think you're right about that. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 02:32:13 pm
While I'm disappointed in the decision, I do think it's a reasonable one.

While I think it would have been fair to reject the law, ask congress to call a spade a spade and name the mandate a tax, and pass the law under those terms where they clearly have authority; I can sympathize with the idea that the courts not stand in the way of such a massive piece of legislation passed by both branches of the legislature.

If the people have a problem with it, they can elect Romney. If they don't, then they'll get what they ask for.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 02:43:26 pm
I think Obama's message that the rich aren't paying their fair share is going to hit home.

I'm a conservative who most often votes Republican, and I have rich relatives, but I'm getting tired of hearing how it is that sector creating the jobs, etc.  We've heard that since the Bush cuts went in 10 years ago.  Where are the jobs?  Where is the country benefiting from the fact that these folks have more money to spend?  We don't see them.  I think that will hit home more than anything the Republicans can offer.

To win, I think the Republican platform will have to give in on things like upper level tax reform and stuff, yet that's where their coffers are filled.  The Republican party is in a paradoxical battle.

I don't know if it's going to hit home or not.  People are certainly realistic enough to know that we're not going to tax the rich enough to take care of our budget problems, for instance.  I imagine most people think the world wouldn't end if we went back to Clinton era tax rates, but I don't know if there's enough demand from most people for the rich to pay their "fair share" very far beyond that.

Basically our problem is that (cliche) our politicians simply don't want to make the tough choices and are more interested in playing to their bases and jockeying for power than solving real problems.  We have trillion dollar deficits, and yet we have Democrats who don't want to touch entitlement programs that are set up on unsustainable models and Republicans who think spending 43% of the world's military spending isn't enough and would rather have trillion dollar deficits continue than vote for anything that doesn't have 100% approval from Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin.

I mean I sympathize with what you're saying, and leaning conservative, I'll be voting for Romney.  Still when I hear Romney talking about how he wants to cut taxes and increase our military spending (which is apparently still much too low at 43% of the world's military spending) while we're still running trillion dollar deficits, I just shake my head.  Of course, when I hear Obama saying the rich aren't paying their fair share even though they're paying over 1/3 of their income to the government and paying 86% of all federal income taxes and how we need to spend more on infrastructure and all sorts of other investments when we're running trillion dollar deficits, I'm also shaking my head.

How about getting Social Security and Medicare on sound financial footing?  Anybody have the guts to propose a real plan for that?  And yes we need a strong military and it's constitutionally blessed spending, but we'll still easily have the world's strongest military if we cut back there too.  We're running trillion dollar deficits, and we can't have everything we want militarily either.   That's the Big Three in government spending, and nobody wants to really address any of it.  P iss some old people off.  P iss some young people off.  P iss some defense contractors off.  P iss the Daily Kos off and p iss Rush Limbaugh off.  Get our government on sound financial footing again, make some tough choices, and then go back to your petty political squabbling. 

We can have our debate about how big or small or medium sized the government should be once we get ourselves back on sound financial footing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 02:49:47 pm
Right on JR. My personal hope is that if Romney is elected, Ryan has a huge influence on his budget proposals.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 02:51:54 pm
While I'm disappointed in the decision, I do think it's a reasonable one.

While I think it would have been fair to reject the law, ask congress to call a spade a spade and name the mandate a tax, and pass the law under those terms where they clearly have authority; I can sympathize with the idea that the courts not stand in the way of such a massive piece of legislation passed by both branches of the legislature.

If the people have a problem with it, they can elect Romney. If they don't, then they'll get what they ask for.

I think Roberts made a pretty good point in his opinion.

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority tointerpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 02:53:46 pm
http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fblogs%2Fpolitics%2F2009%2F09%2Fobama-mandate-is-not-a-tax%2F

Have your cake and eat it, too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 03:09:16 pm
It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.


Good line.  Roberts usually delivers good lines.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 03:11:33 pm
Yep, he makes sound points, JR, and I respect the wisdom of Roberts in taking a step back from the issue.

That said, the flip side of it is that the courts no doubt have the authority and responsibility to measure laws against the constitution. My guess is that Roberts felt any decision was going to be too politically charged, and his majority opinion is as close as you can get to a "present" vote under the circumstances.

If it had been a less significant law with reduced political impact, my guess is he strikes it down as unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on June 28, 2012, 03:17:20 pm
Now that it's been correctly called a tax, what happens to all the waivers etc that were granted? Is it legal to exempt specific groups from the tax without a change in the tax code? Weren't companies like McDonalds that emplo large numbers of low wage employees exempted from the law?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 28, 2012, 03:52:01 pm
There is a lot of misundedrstanding about these "waivers".  From what I have read, the waiver just releases the state or company from having to comply with quite small portions of the law, such as the medicaid requirements.  There is NO waiver from the requirement for every individual to purchase health care insurance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 03:57:27 pm
I wish the federal government good luck with that.   Half the yokels in Illinois drive around without car insurance, and the feds are going to figure out who hasn't got medical insurance?  LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 03:59:00 pm
Is this the same government that says AZ shouldn't make people prove they're citizens, but it's okay to make people prove they have health insurance?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on June 28, 2012, 04:15:17 pm
The far more interesting point was the the forced Medicaid expansion ruling.  State can now opt of of the Medicaid expansion and keep the rest of their Medicaid funds intact.  This is how over 1/2 of the uninsured were going to get insured.  Now your going to have a bunch of poor people that can't afford medical insurance get hit with a great new tax. 

The medicare cuts won't happen because they are mostly the doctor fees that congress and the president have "fixed" every time since it was passed.  If it did go through most seniors wouldn't be able to get into see a doctor.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 04:19:51 pm
The far more interesting point was the the forced Medicaid expansion ruling.  State can now opt of of the Medicaid expansion and keep the rest of their Medicaid funds intact.  This is how over 1/2 of the uninsured were going to get insured.  Now your going to have a bunch of poor people that can't afford medical insurance get hit with a great new tax. 

Yeah I wonder how that is going to work.  For Obamacare to "work", everybody has to be in the health care system. 

For all the new people who are to be added to Medicaid, were the states originally going to have to pick up a portion of the tab for them?  Now that states can opt out of that portion, is the federal government going to have to pick up all of the tab for people up to 133% poverty or people without children that Medicaid doesn't currently cover?  If that's the case, I don't see how that's going to pass Congress.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 28, 2012, 04:28:16 pm
Here we go.  The Federal government will pick up the entire tab for new Medicaid enrollees for the first three years, and then states have to start picking up more of the costs after that.

It'll be interesting to see if Pelosi is right about states wanting to get in on the Medicaid expansion once they see the benefits.  I'm not so sure.  In Tennessee, if they ever pick this up, they might have to institute a state income tax down the road to cover everybody, and that would be very unpopular.

Quote
States will also receive full federal funding for the first three years of the expansion before they have to take up more the expense, which Pelosi described as a major incentive to get them to participate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/pelosi-no-governors-wont-opt-out-of-the-medicaid-expansion/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/pelosi-no-governors-wont-opt-out-of-the-medicaid-expansion/)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 04:35:21 pm
The courts said AZ CAN check people's papers. They upheld that part of the law.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 04:38:22 pm
Yes, tico, but the Obama administration was adamant that part of the AZ was wrong.  You're missing the irony.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 04:51:18 pm
I don't understand why federal funding for three years is a major incentive.

"Hey guys! We're going to dramatically increase your Medicaid enrollment permanently, and you're going to have to find a way to pay for it, but we gotcha for the first three years. Whaddaya say?"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 04:52:02 pm
Ahh, got it Curt.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on June 28, 2012, 04:57:19 pm
They won't opt in for the expanded medicaid.  If it was such a great deal, they wouldn't have had to threaten the states with pulling their entire medicaid payments.  While it might be paid for the first three years, eventually the states are going to have to put up their own money to pay for it.  One left leaning blog that was trying to paint a rosey picture for this stated that the states would save money to do this.  They could save around $23 billion on some costs (not net), if they spent $70 billion. 

I think the Democrats are hoping that doctors and hospitals scream from the mountains that this has to get done, but hospitals lose money on medicaid patients and doctors get paid much less than regular insurance so I can't see it happening.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 05:00:38 pm
Docs hate Medicaid. This is looking like a cluster. I didn't realize the significance of the courts ruling that states could not be penalized for opting out.

Lots of states are going to reject this for financial reasons, let alone political ones. So many states are strapped for cash, and they don't have the ability to run deficits and sell bonds in the manner that the federal govt does.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 05:42:08 pm
SCOTUS dissent opinion makes a great point, too:

"By reinterpreting the insurance mandate and changing the Medicaid provision, the majority engaged in 'vast judicial overreaching,' the dissenters said. 'The court decides today to save a statute the Congress did not write'."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 28, 2012, 06:26:10 pm
I teach Constitutional Law in law school.  I am happy to answer any questions.  I am also happy to share my perspective, but I am not going to tell anyone that his or her perspective is "right" or "wrong" so long as it is informed and not premised on historically inaccurate premises.  The debates about this case (and in all cases that make it to the Supreme Court) reflect differences in opinion about where power should lie, and how our political institutions should exercise power, that have raged since the Founding.  In the same vein, I do not tell my students what I think; I present them with a range of perspectives on the issues and encourage them to begin developing (or refining) their own working hypotheses -- hypotheses that really should remain "working" (and therefore subject to revision) throughout their lives.

Just so you know where I am coming from:  I do not believe that the ACA is even close to the best way to achieve universal health coverage (which I support as a political matter).  But I am very glad that the Supreme Court did not hold it unconstitutional.  I believe that the power of judicial review should be reserved to instances of clear unconstitutionality so that we are principally governed by the democratically elected branches and their members, who swear the same oaths to faithfully implement and defend the Constitution as do judges.  I'm not against judicial review; I just think that it should be used sparingly and judiciously.  I think that striking down this entire act -- as the dissent proposed to do -- would have been injudicious.  But that's because of the premises I bring to the debate.  I recognize that the premises are (and always have been) debatable.

FWIW.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 07:18:06 pm
ECF, my guess is that Roberts feels the same way as you do on the matter of judicial review, though his personal politics may be on the other side of the line. I respect that he did what he felt right in light of his legal opinion of review, as opposed to his political preference.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 07:19:30 pm
ECF, what do you think about the dissents assertion that in reimagining the mandate as a tax, the majority validated a piece of legislature that Congress never wrote?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 28, 2012, 07:41:10 pm
I don't understand why federal funding for three years is a major incentive.

"Hey guys! We're going to dramatically increase your Medicaid enrollment permanently, and you're going to have to find a way to pay for it, but we gotcha for the first three years. Whaddaya say?"

How many people have signed up for HBO, Vonage, Time Warner, etc. because they get low rates for three months?  Seems to work quite often.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2012, 07:49:16 pm
How many people have signed up for HBO, Vonage, Time Warner, etc. because they get low rates for three months?  Seems to work quite often.

Yes, it's just another wise political game.

How many people will vote for Obama because their taxes aren't that bad, only to discover them skyrocket next year when this landmark legislation has to be paid for?

If I'm the governor of Illinois, I take the deal, look good, get re-elected, then act shocked when crap hits the fan.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on June 28, 2012, 08:39:16 pm
The crap is going to hit the fan in Illinois even if they don't expand medicaid.  Unfunded pensions suck.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 28, 2012, 08:45:14 pm
ECF, another interesting thing I'm hearing is that this decision sets the precedent that there are no limits to the government's power to tax. Not only this, but the government can now levy a "tax" against any behavior it deems undesirable, so long as that express behavior is not already protected elsewhere in the constitution.

So, for example, if the government determines that it is it's job and in the public's best interest to limit obesity, it could levy a "tax" against individuals who exceed a certain BMI.

Under the language of this decision, such govt behavior would be allowable and constitutional.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 28, 2012, 08:49:09 pm
Tico, that doesn't bother me nearly as much as when the Court strikes down part of a statute and then effectively rewrites the rest of it to function constitutionally, on the assumption that this is what Congress would want.  (This what the Court did in striking down an essential component of the federal sentencing guidelines a few years ago. The Court also did so in upholding Georgia's sodomy law - which made sodomy a felony - in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. All agreed that the statute could not be enforced as written to criminalize sodomy between a married couple. But the Court assumed that the Georgia legislature would want to criminalize sodomy in every circumstance where it could and then upheld the statute because it could constitutionally be applied against gay persons.  But what if the GA legislature would not want to discriminate against a subclass in this way? What if, for the legislature, it was sodomy for nobody or sodomy for all? :)

The situation with the ACA seems different to me. It seems to me that a law is either within Congress's power to enact or it isn't.  Frequently, Congress doesn't even specify the power it is using to enact a law. In such circumstances, the Court routinely upholds the law if it could lawfully be enacted under any power. This doesn't seem to me so different. Moreover, I am sympathetic to the argument that deference to a coordinate branch should dictate that the Court bend over backwards to uphold its work product.

Also, is there any reason to think Congress would not want the Court to uphold its work on alternative grounds if the statute is only constitutional under those alternative grounds? It's hard for me to see any such reason, at least in this case.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 28, 2012, 08:49:50 pm
That was in response to your first question.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 28, 2012, 08:57:02 pm
As to the tax question, I do think that what you say is true. Congress can (and frequently does) use the tax power to incentivize and disincentivize behavior. And this is perfectly constitutional, so long as no other constitutional right is implicated.

Congress has the constitutional power to do many, many things that overwhelming majorities would find outrageous.

As to your BMI example, I think that law would raise a serious equal protection problem. So there are other limits.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 09:03:25 pm
SCOTUS dissent opinion makes a great point, too:

"By reinterpreting the insurance mandate and changing the Medicaid provision, the majority engaged in 'vast judicial overreaching,' the dissenters said. 'The court decides today to save a statute the Congress did not write'."

That is why this was one of the more activist decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 09:09:10 pm
is there any reason to think Congress would not want the Court to uphold its work on alternative grounds if the statute is only constitutional under those alternative grounds? It's hard for me to see any such reason, at least in this case.

In reviewing Congressional action to determine whether it is constitutional, I am not sure what Congress would want makes any difference.  We can start with the presumption that Congress, or any governmental entity, would like its actions upheld and its authority sustained.... If that in fact is the function of the Court, we don't have judicial review, we have a rubber stamp.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 09:16:53 pm
ECF, another interesting thing I'm hearing is that this decision sets the precedent that there are no limits to the government's power to tax. Not only this, but the government can now levy a "tax" against any behavior it deems undesirable, so long as that express behavior is not already protected elsewhere in the constitution.

There are relatively few constitutional limitations on the government's power to tax.  The limits are largely political, not constitutional.  Look at all of the "sin taxes" we have accepted all the way back to the founding of the nation.  (The Whiskey Rebellion against a whiskey tax passed by the first Congress, a tax seen acceptable at least in part because it was a "sin tax," against a behavior deemed somewhat undesirable.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 28, 2012, 09:24:41 pm
We have... Republicans who think spending 43% of the world's military spending isn't enough.... Still when I hear Romney talking about how he wants to cut taxes and increase our military spending (which is apparently still much too low at 43% of the world's military spending) while we're still running trillion dollar deficits, I just shake my head.

I would also... if I had ever heard Romney say he intended to increase military spending.  Has he actually taken that position, or is that just your expectation based on the number of Republicans who do genuinely push that?

How about getting Social Security and Medicare on sound financial footing?  Anybody have the guts to propose a real plan for that?

Those proposals have been out there.

But from your complaints, I would almost think you would have been a Ron Paul supporter... except I don't believe you were.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 28, 2012, 09:57:14 pm
As to the tax question, I do think that what you say is true. Congress can (and frequently does) use the tax power to incentivize and disincentivize behavior. And this is perfectly constitutional, so long as no other constitutional right is implicated.

Congress has the constitutional power to do many, many things that overwhelming majorities would find outrageous.

As to your BMI example, I think that law would raise a serious equal protection problem. So there are other limits.

East - It is true that Congress has often passed laws that are disincentives for a specific act, such as buying tobacco or alcohol.  And they have passed laws that have been incentives for acts, such as exporting products overseas.  But have they ever passed laws FORCING someone that is not engaged in commerce to do so by buying a specific product or service.  If you buy a car, you must buy seat belts, but there is no requirement to buy cars.  If you drive on the highways, you must buy insurance, but there is no requirement to drive on the highways.

You didn't exactly answer Tico's comment.  Under the new ruling, is there ANY behavior that congress can not tax you for not doing?  Do they, in fact, have the authority to tax you based upon your fat intake, or for not buying enough vegetables?

I agree that legislating from the bench by trying to decide what congress REALLY MEANT to do, is even worse.  But that is not justification for letting a law stand for which Constitutional authority does not exist for part of the law.  The only action they should have taken was to strike down the entire law and let Congress start over from the beginning, unless the law contained language that "if one portion is deemed to be unconstitutional, then the rest of the law should stand" as I believe they did with the McCain Feingold act.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 29, 2012, 07:19:54 am
But their ruling, Dave, was that the entire law was constitutional so long as the Medicaid provision was narrowly read.  Given their ruling, there was no need to deal with severability.

To more specifically answer Tico's question:  He is correct.  There is no recognized doctrinal limit (of which I am aware) on Congress's power to incentivize/disincentivize behavior through the taxing power other than limits supplied by other parts of the Constitution.  Thus, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to impose a tax on speaking out on issues of public concern in order to keep people from doing so.  This would violate the First Amendment. I think the BMI tax that Tico mentions might violate equal protection or due process. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 29, 2012, 07:24:20 am
To answer your other question Dave -- about whether Congress has ever passed a law incentivizing the purchase of a product in this way -- the answer is, no.  But I don't see why novelty should equal unconstitutionality. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 29, 2012, 07:43:18 am
I find this to be a very interesting take on the ramifications of the decision by Yale's Jack Balkin:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/06/it-was-always-about-tax-and-medicaid.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2012, 07:59:38 am
To answer your other question Dave -- about whether Congress has ever passed a law incentivizing the purchase of a product in this way -- the answer is, no.  But I don't see why novelty should equal unconstitutionality.

While novelty should not equal unconstitutionality, it also should not bring a pass on the the question. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on June 29, 2012, 11:44:09 am
To answer your other question Dave -- about whether Congress has ever passed a law incentivizing the purchase of a product in this way -- the answer is, no.  But I don't see why novelty should equal unconstitutionality. 

But the obvious reason that they have not done so is that the ability to regulate those who engage in interstate commerce is not equal to the ability to regulate those who do NOT engage in interstate commerce.

Even if you assume that that person will SOMEDAY go to see his doctor, as long as it is a doctor in the same state, that is NOT interstate commerce.

So where does congress get the power to force someone to purchase a private commodity?  Does it indeed have the power to tax inaction?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 29, 2012, 01:00:13 pm
As to the tax question, I do think that what you say is true. Congress can (and frequently does) use the tax power to incentivize and disincentivize behavior. And this is perfectly constitutional, so long as no other constitutional right is implicated.

Erick Erickson at Red State after the ruling said I think half jokingly, "I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now."

If congress wanted to pass an abortion tax, could they do that?  Or I guess that would implicate the right to privacy that the Supreme Court recognizes?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on June 29, 2012, 01:12:45 pm
If I'm the governor of Illinois, I take the deal, look good, get re-elected, then act shocked when crap hits the fan.

What if you're in a state like Tennessee that probably won't go along with the Medicaid expansion at first and you can't afford or don't wish to purchase health insurance on your own without Medicaid covering it for you? 

Seems like there are going to be a lot of people who are going to get hit with the mandate penalty/tax who are going to be demanding that the states eventually opt into the expanded Medicaid program.  It's going to make for some interesting state politics down the road I would think. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 29, 2012, 01:40:06 pm
What if you're in a state like Tennessee that probably won't go along with the Medicaid expansion at first and you can't afford or don't wish to purchase health insurance on your own without Medicaid covering it for you? 

Seems like there are going to be a lot of people who are going to get hit with the mandate penalty/tax who are going to be demanding that the states eventually opt into the expanded Medicaid program.  It's going to make for some interesting state politics down the road I would think. 

I take the money and blame this guy JR
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2012, 02:09:16 pm
But the obvious reason that they have not done so is that the ability to regulate those who engage in interstate commerce is not equal to the ability to regulate those who do NOT engage in interstate commerce.

Even if you assume that that person will SOMEDAY go to see his doctor, as long as it is a doctor in the same state, that is NOT interstate commerce.

So where does congress get the power to force someone to purchase a private commodity?  Does it indeed have the power to tax inaction?

The Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes.  There are virtually no limits on that power (though it might be a good idea to pass an amendment to do that), so, yes, it would appear that it has the power to tax inaction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2012, 02:11:54 pm
If congress wanted to pass an abortion tax, could they do that?

Not so long as the Court pretends there is a Constitutionally guaranteed "right" to abortion.  Congress also could not tax speech, or the right to bear arms or the insistence that police officers have a warrant before searching your home.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 29, 2012, 10:01:06 pm
Erick Erickson at Red State after the ruling said I think half jokingly, "I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now."

If congress wanted to pass an abortion tax, could they do that?  Or I guess that would implicate the right to privacy that the Supreme Court recognizes?

Yes, that is what would make doing so a problem.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 29, 2012, 10:03:24 pm
Or what Jes said.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 29, 2012, 10:11:23 pm
Eastcoast, have you poured thru the entire decision yet?

I am looking it now, and haven't gotten thru the syllabus.

193 paged.  Ugh.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Eastcoastfan on June 29, 2012, 10:18:27 pm
Not from beginning to end yet - just portions.  Scotus blog has become an indispensable resource.

To think, Holmes would have probably handled this in 10 pages or fewer.  The Court's clerk-written opinions have become unreadable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 30, 2012, 08:58:07 am
Agreed.  And not just unreadable, but quite often incomprehensible.  And, regarding Holmes, it certainly appeared Roberts was attempting to channel him in his closing paragraph.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 04, 2012, 10:20:31 pm
Those who think it is okay for the President to order non-judicial and non-reviewable assassinations since he is only having "the bad guys" killed, might want to think a little bit more, and reflect on who is viewed as "bad guys." http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-report-lists-liberty-lovers-as-terrorists/

A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 04, 2012, 11:18:57 pm
Are any terrorists operating in America on the "kill list"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2012, 01:43:02 pm
davep, neither you nor I know, or would be allowed to know, who is or isn't on the kill list.  It is secret and unreviewable... and as disturbing as that is, it is actually more disturbing that you and most other people in this country do not even begin to care.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2012, 01:56:38 pm
Right.  Nobody knows who is on the list. 

But that is besides the point.  It is impossible to know if there IS a list, let alone to know who is on it.  The issue is not one of "lists", but rather whether or not it is a good idea to kill enemies that are overseas and beyond the reach of legal processes.  If Obama (or Reagan, or Jesus Christ) killed someone within the boundry of the US, I would be strongly against it.  On the contrary, they even went so far as to process the underpants bomber in civil rather than military court.  It sounds like they are conducting the conflict in a responsible manner.

During world war II, when we learned that Admiral Yamamoto was flying from one place to another, we sent fighter planes specifically to kill him.  All in all, a good idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2012, 02:07:40 pm
dave, suggesting there is no such list is a bit much, and if it exists, there is no reason to believe there is any geographic limitation on it.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything suggesting that the limitations on government power regarding having someone killed are in any way different "within the boundry of the US," than outside of the US, nor is there any logical justification for such a distinction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2012, 02:52:55 pm
I didn't say there was no such list.  I said that IF there is such a list, I don't care.  All I am concerned about is if they kill someone that they had legal jurisdiction over, and chose not to use it.  The geographic limit seems to be obvious to me.  When we were in Viet nam, the Cong used Cambodia as a sanctuary.  Cambodia would, or could do nothing about it.  So we tried to do something on our own.  Not to do so would have been foolish.

If we could issue an arrest warrant that the government of Yemen would act on, arresting the person and turning him over to our courts, then it would be irresponsible for us to send in the drones.  Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

And it has long been understood that the Executive can conduct an overseas conflict without many Constitutional limits.  POWs have been routinely sequestered for unlimited periods of time without habeus corpus or other restraints.  Yamamoto was shot down without recourse to the courts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2012, 03:14:43 pm
Yamamoto was shot down without recourse to the courts.

And Yamamoto is an utterly invalid comparison to what is being done.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2012, 03:26:11 pm
Why not?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 05, 2012, 03:30:55 pm
Some questions merit responses.

Others do not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 05, 2012, 03:52:52 pm
The criteria you use seems to be whether or not you HAVE a valid response.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on July 05, 2012, 05:06:12 pm
Surely you're not just figuring that out...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 06, 2012, 09:59:27 am
Nine headlines and links on Drudge right now:

Just 80,000 jobs added in June...  One-third at temp agencies...
85,000 WENT ON DISABILITY IN JUNE!
Unemployment rate for blacks jumps to 14.4%...
Rate stuck at 11% for Hispanics...
780,000 Fewer Women Employed Under Obama...
DOW PLUNGES...
Team Obama predicted 5.6% today with stimulus...
Lights go dim on another Obama energy project...


Spin will not change the reality.

Obama is toast.

http://www.businessinsider.com/june-nonfarm-payrolls-report-2012-7  http://business.time.com/2012/07/06/u-s-hiring-likely-improved-only-modestly-in-june/
http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-climbs-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm
http://www.businessinsider.com/june-nonfarm-payrolls-report-2012-7
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hispanic-unemployment-stuck-110-percent_648175.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/780000-more-women-unemployed-today-when-obama-took-office
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48093560
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/june-jobs-swoon-americas-labor-market-depression-continues/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/lights-go-dim-on-another-energy-project/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on July 06, 2012, 10:55:06 am
Can we have a guarantee on that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on July 06, 2012, 06:10:44 pm
and how many filibusters
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 12, 2012, 07:57:54 am
Global Warming.... oops....

The actual study -- http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

A slightly more comprehensible reading of the study -- http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

The newsbuster take on it -- http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice

And the UK Register story -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/

And the highlights in a nutshell: In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph.

The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 13, 2012, 02:54:41 pm
Got any actual information besides the rupert murdoch spin machine?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on July 13, 2012, 04:05:42 pm
no
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 13, 2012, 04:22:38 pm
Got any actual information besides the rupert murdoch spin machine?

Actual information?  You mean like the actual study itself, the first link in what I posted?

otto, you embarrass even yourself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 13, 2012, 04:37:40 pm
Fools can not be embarrassed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 13, 2012, 07:34:49 pm
Well, he's an embarrassment to lemmings everywhere.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 16, 2012, 01:51:53 pm
jeesie

You have had time now.

Any actual information on Global Climate Change that you want to comment on the is NOT like donald trump birtherism from the fair and balanced network of bias?

No uk telegraph or ny daily news articles current?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 16, 2012, 04:43:01 pm
otto, as I told you before, the first link is to the study itself.

To make it easy for you, here is the link again: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

From the first paragraph:

Solar insolation changes, resulting from long-term oscillations of orbital configurations1, are an important driver of Holocene climate2, 3. The forcing is substantial over the past 2,000 years, up to four times as large as the 1.6 W m−2 net anthropogenic forcing since 1750 (ref. 4), but the trend varies considerably over time, space and with season5. Using numerous high-latitude proxy records, slow orbital changes have recently been shown6 to gradually force boreal summer temperature cooling over the common era. Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records. The long-term trend now revealed in maximum latewood density data is in line with coupled general circulation models7, 8 indicating albedo-driven feedback mechanisms and substantial summer cooling over the past two millennia in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes. These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions9, 10, 11, 12, 13 relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 16, 2012, 05:34:54 pm
Do you actually believe that Oddo COULD understand that, let alone that he WOULD understand it?

He is still working on the Downward sloping supply curve.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on July 16, 2012, 06:58:42 pm
why the name calling?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 16, 2012, 10:48:21 pm
The only thing that Nature magazine article proves jessie, is that you didn't read much past it and certaintly didn't review the entire issue.

It just left me wondering what idiot wingnut site you pulled it from.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 19, 2012, 08:02:46 am
To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise!  Surprise!  Surprise!"
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/19/Young-Obama-Wall-Street-Outsourcing-Specialist
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 19, 2012, 11:27:38 pm
breitbart....Moronic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 19, 2012, 11:29:14 pm
jessiebart

breitbart have anything on Bain and Freeport Illinios?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on July 19, 2012, 11:34:06 pm
Since starting his Bain attacks Obama has lost his lead in VA, most of the lead in NV and lost oints in nearly every national poll.  He probably isn't smart enough to realize that though.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 19, 2012, 11:35:57 pm
Anyone ever figure out what the bart suffix means to the loon Oddo.  He certainly seems fixated on it, even on those days he is semilucid.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 20, 2012, 06:37:06 am
I assumed he meant brat and it was a typo, either referring to Romney as a spoiled brat or a Wisconsin food staple, with mustard and a bun.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2012, 08:08:39 am
Since starting his Bain attacks Obama has lost his lead in VA, most of the lead in NV and lost oints in nearly every national poll.  He probably isn't smart enough to realize that though.

Think a moment, Robb.

otto and Phill23 are Obama's core constituency.  They are also probably pretty representative of his inner circle and even of Obama.

THEY certainly don't see any mistake there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2012, 08:10:02 am
Anyone ever figure out what the bart suffix means to the loon Oddo.  He certainly seems fixated on it, even on those days he is semilucid.

Brietbart.  davebart, etc-bart....

Now, what exactly that means, is another matter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 20, 2012, 11:47:55 am
Brietbart.  Wasn't he the talk show guy that died a while ago?  What is that supposed to signify to those of us who had never heard of him until his death for some reason made news?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 20, 2012, 01:45:58 pm
Brietbart founded a website which serves as a news and opinion generate and collector, with a definite tilt to the conservative/libertarian side.  (And the site continues even after his death.)

Sad as it is to even think that I might actually understand otto, I am betting he is suggesting that those he identifies with a reference to "bart" are somehow clonish automotons who simply echo the Brietbart line.  In otto's mind, no one could independently come to the same positions unless they were reading Brietbart
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 20, 2012, 01:47:51 pm
What you are saying is that Oddo is even crazier than he seems to be at first glance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 21, 2012, 05:08:42 pm
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12175-two-aurora-shootings-one-widely-known-the-other-ignored?fb_ref=.UAsjq5fjKKo.like&fb_source=home_oneline
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 23, 2012, 07:41:12 am
Ah, the truth is often so different from the legend!  Not only did government NOT invent the internet, but because the federal government had gotten its paws on the protocol, the internet languished for 30 years until it was fully privatized in 1995.  Yet another example of government failure when involved in the marketplace and how government does not help innovation or productivity but chokes them both.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html?mod=hp_opinion
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 23, 2012, 11:23:34 pm
As usual jeesie the disbarred lawyer has his head up some wingnut's asre.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407539,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407539,00.asp)

Excerpt...

"The trouble for Crovitz is that Hiltzik himself, like Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall, has turned up to say, basically, "You know nothing of my work! ... How you got to write a column on anything is totally amazing!"

Hiltzik takes a scalpel to much of the column, noting that "while I'm gratified in a sense that [Croviz] cites my book about Xerox PARC, 'Dealers of Lightning,' to support his case, it's my duty to point out that he's wrong."

Some of what Crovitz gets wrong is simply bad research. For example, he credits Tim Berners-Lee with the invention of "hyperlinks," when in fact, Berners-Lee and his colleagues at CERN created the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) that gave rise to the World Wide Web. Hiltzik names Doug Engelbart as the "hyperlink" inventor Crovitz probably meant, noting wryly that, anyway, the development of these important technologies at CERN, a European government consortium, and the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) where Englebert created his NLS collaborative computing system with DARPA, NASA, and U.S. Air Force funding, does little to advance Crovitz's cause."


Try again disbarred lawyer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 23, 2012, 11:31:50 pm
Yes, Government Researchers Really Did Invent the Internet


By Michael Moyer | July 23, 2012 | 
Scienfic American


“It’s an urban legend that the government launched the Internet,” writes Gordon Crovitz in an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. Most histories cite the Pentagon-backed ARPANet as the Internet’s immediate predecessor, but that view undersells the importance of research conducted at Xerox PARC labs in the 1970s, claims Crovitz. In fact, Crovitz implies that, if anything, government intervention gummed up the natural process of laissez faire innovation. “The Internet was fully privatized in 1995,” says Crovitz, “just as the commercial Web began to boom.” The implication is clear: the Internet could only become the world-changing force it is today once big government got out of the way.

But Crovitz’s story is based on a profound misunderstanding of not only history, but technology. Most egregiously, Crovitz seems to confuse the Internet—at heart, a set of protocols designed to allow far-flung computer networks to communicate with one another—with Ethernet, a protocol for connecting nearby computers into a local network. (Robert Metcalfe, a researcher at Xerox PARC who co-invented the Ethernet protocol, today tweeted tongue-in-cheek “Is it possible I invented the whole damn Internet?”)

The most important part of what we now know of as the Internet is the TCP/IP protocol, which was invented by Vincent Cerf and Robert Kahn. Crovitz mentions TCP/IP, but only in passing, calling it (correctly) “the Internet’s backbone.” He fails to mention that Cerf and Kahn developed TCP/IP while working on a government grant.

Other commenters, including Timothy B. Lee at Ars Technica and veteran technology reporter Steve Wildstrom, have noted that Crovitz’s misunderstandings run deep. He also manages to confuse the World Wide Web (incidentally, invented by Tim Berners Lee while working at CERN, a government-funded research laboratory) with hyperlinks, and an internet—a link between two computers—with THE Internet.

But perhaps the most damning rebuttal comes from Michael Hiltzik, the author “Dealers of Lightning,” a history of Xerox PARC that Crovitz uses as his main source for material. “While I’m gratified in a sense that he cites my book,” writes Hiltzik, “it’s my duty to point out that he’s wrong. My book bolsters, not contradicts, the argument that the Internet had its roots in the ARPANet, a government project.”

In truth, no private company would have been capable of developing a project like the Internet, which required years of R&D efforts spread out over scores of far-flung agencies, and which began to take off only after decades of investment. Visionary infrastructure projects such as this are part of what has allowed our economy to grow so much in the past century. Today’s op-ed is just one sad indicator of how we seem to be losing our appetite for this kind of ambition.


Any simple Google search would have been better for you disbarred lawyer.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on July 23, 2012, 11:33:52 pm
The only failure here is the disbarred lawyers post.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on July 24, 2012, 07:56:48 am
I think posters making personal attacks about another poster's private life need to be banned from the board.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 24, 2012, 08:01:20 am
There's a poster who normally responds to this kind of thing...I'm waiting with interest
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 24, 2012, 08:07:46 am
I think posters making personal attacks about another poster's private life need to be banned from the board.

Why?

Has someone done that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 24, 2012, 10:23:48 am
I think posters making personal attacks about another poster's private life need to be banned from the board.

You mean I can't mention that you are a snot nosed little brat?

That will limit my posts greatly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 24, 2012, 10:53:42 am
You mean I can't mention that you are a snot nosed little brat?

That will limit my posts greatly.
  The truth is not a personal attack.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 24, 2012, 06:54:51 pm
Heard an interesting speaker today who says that his group has studied the voting patterns for the upcoming election and predict that Obama will win the popular vote by a large margin and still lose the electoral vote to Romney.  They're predicting key states will go Romney and overcome the huge advantage Obama has East, Far West, and around Illinois.  just passing that on because I found it interesting
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 24, 2012, 06:57:50 pm
BTW, I've waited almost all day and maybe he isn't around, but when guys hammer Otto with name-calling, Robert L rightfully calls them on it.  I was waiting to see if the gate swung both ways.  Apparently not.   But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on July 24, 2012, 07:54:25 pm
Is that a euphemism?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 24, 2012, 08:00:16 pm
No, I think it's just a mixed analogy, like spilt milk under the bridge.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 24, 2012, 08:06:01 pm
That was stupid.  You should give up.  Just toss in the ship.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 24, 2012, 08:11:51 pm
Was there a typo in the last word?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on July 24, 2012, 08:34:45 pm
Yes.  I meant to say _just toss in the chip.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 01, 2012, 02:33:43 pm
Romney needs to give people a reason to vote for him rather than counting on anti-Obama sentiment to put him over.  He doesn't seem to have made much progress in that regard.  Perhaps he's counting on the debates to make a positive difference for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 01, 2012, 02:57:29 pm
But all the pundits are saying that only bland will beat Obama.  Send people to the polls to vote against the incumbent because he is an easy target.  I don't agree, but if that the strategy, the Republicans have the perfect candidate.

The Republicans haven't really run a brilliant campaign since Reagan.  Clinton showed the world how to do it, Gore and Bush were ho-hum, and Obama's team also put things together spectacularly.  I already see smarter ads from the Democrats.  The Republicans will waste money on birther crap and Muslim he's a muslim crap instead of showing the average American just what the new laws are going to do to their pocketbooks.  I really believe that is all they would have to do in these tough times.  Some guy will think of it November 9.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 01, 2012, 03:14:55 pm
What the 1% willard offers is a tax policy that would benefit him and his top supporters. From a report out today from the Tax Policy Center and the Brookings Insitute.

"Offsetting the $360 billion in [annual] revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the [Earned Income Tax Credit] and child tax credit.

The above estimates assume that all available tax expenditures for higher-income households are completely eliminated—tax expenditures that include deductions for charitable contributions, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and exclusions from income of health insurance and other fringe benefits. To the degree any of these were even partially retained for high-income households, the net tax cuts for high-income households and tax increases for low- and middleincome households would be even larger."

According to the TPC: Americans making half a million to a million dollars a year would average a $17,000 tax cut. For middle-class families with children making less than $200,000 a year, the average tax would increase by $2041 a year. The rich, natch, would make out like bandits, millionaires getting an $87,000 tax cut, those making more getting even more out of the deal.

Feel better middle America?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2012, 05:49:46 pm
The Republicans haven't really run a brilliant campaign since Reagan.  Clinton showed the world how to do it, Gore and Bush were ho-hum, and Obama's team also put things together spectacularly.  I already see smarter ads from the Democrats.  The Republicans will waste money on birther crap and Muslim he's a muslim crap instead of showing the average American just what the new laws are going to do to their pocketbooks.

Folks often forget that while he won election twice, Clinton was so incredibly popular that he did it without a majority of the vote either time.  He won because of 2 3rd party candidacies taking votes which largely would have gone to the Republican candidate, AND because both Republicans he ran against were pretty lousy candidates.

As to the "Republicans... wast(ing) money on birther crap and... he's a Muslim crap," that is not going to happen.  Yes, some independent groups will, but that will not be the Republican party, which has aggressively avoided being associated with either argument.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 02, 2012, 09:25:12 am
By the way, Chic-fil-A makes an outstanding chicken sandwich.  The company I once worked for, Griffith Laboratories in Alsip, developed the batter for them years ago, and I dealt with the company from the business side for many years.  At that time, at least, they were a great group of people to work with.

The Wall Street Journal did an article on them several years ago, where they estimated that their decision to keep stores closed on Sundays costs the company about a billion dollars per year in sales, and close to a hundred billion dollars per years in lost income each year.

You may not agree with the owner's moral or religious code, but he certainly follows it regardless of the personal cost to himself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on August 02, 2012, 09:32:34 am
I loaded a load of paper bags across the street from Griffirh Labs just last week.  Small world huh Dave
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on August 02, 2012, 09:35:45 am
By the way, Chic-fil-A makes an outstanding chicken sandwich.  The company I once worked for, Griffith Laboratories in Alsip, developed the batter for them years ago, and I dealt with the company from the business side for many years.  At that time, at least, they were a great group of people to work with.

The Wall Street Journal did an article on them several years ago, where they estimated that their decision to keep stores closed on Sundays costs the company about a billion dollars per year in sales, and close to a hundred billion dollars per years in lost income each year.

You may not agree with the owner's moral or religious code, but he certainly follows it regardless of the personal cost to himself.

How does $1B in revenue turn into $100B in income?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 02, 2012, 09:36:56 am
I worked there from 80 to 92.  A great company, totally privately owned.  C' L Griffith founded the company in 1919, and died on the job at about age 93.  His son Dean is still the Chairman, and although I have lost track of his age, it had got to be approaching 90.  A true gentleman, and an admirable person.

I still own 150 shares of the company stock.  Dean owns a little over 2 million shares.  If he and I vote as a block, we can't be defeated.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Santo4HofF on August 02, 2012, 09:37:13 am
Dave
Just last week I loaded a load of paper bags across the street from Griffith Labs. Small world huh.
 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 02, 2012, 09:49:09 am
How does $1B in revenue turn into $100B in income?

Skillful accounting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 02, 2012, 10:11:21 am
How does $1B in revenue turn into $100B in income?

Obviously, I meant 100 million.  Sometimes, typos happen.  Thanks for pointing it out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 11, 2012, 12:29:49 am
Wow, looks like Romney has picked Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 11, 2012, 12:31:52 am
Good Lord.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 11, 2012, 11:36:32 am
Rasmussen has Obama's approval rating at -11.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 11, 2012, 11:39:00 am
Ryan will make a great vice president.  But he adds nothing to the ticket as far as the election is concerned.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 11, 2012, 12:29:26 pm
Rasmussen has Obama's approval rating at -11.

Is Romney at -11.1?

Where's Perot when you need him?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2012, 01:39:14 pm
Ryan will make a great vice president.  But he adds nothing to the ticket as far as the election is concerned.

That's not really accurate.  He's quite popular with the Tea Party component of the base, and also pretty popular with the rest of the base.  He also does wonders to focus campaign attention on the right issues, and he might well help with Wisconsin.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 11, 2012, 02:14:11 pm
Nolan Ryan was a great pitcher and he'll be a great vice president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 11, 2012, 03:11:02 pm
That's not really accurate.  He's quite popular with the Tea Party component of the base, and also pretty popular with the rest of the base.  He also does wonders to focus campaign attention on the right issues, and he might well help with Wisconsin.



The Tea Party component of the base was going to vote anyway.  Ryan will bring in very few new votes in most of the country, and will lose a lot of votes in Florida, where the elderly will be swamped with ads saying that Ryan will take away Social Security and Medicare.

Rubio, on the other hand, is equally a favorite of the Tea Party component of the party, but would have brought in a fair amount of Latino voters who would otherwise not have voted or would have voted for the Democrat.

Republicans have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot whenever things are going right for them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 11, 2012, 03:24:48 pm
The Tea Party component of the base was going to vote anyway.

They will now.  That does not necessarily mean they would have.  Tim Pawlenty or Portman would have brought in far fewer of them.


Ryan will bring in very few new votes in most of the country, and will lose a lot of votes in Florida, where the elderly will be swamped with ads saying that Ryan will take away Social Security and Medicare.the Democrat.

The Dems were going to run those ads regardless who was on the ticket.  This year the Republicans will have the money to run even more ads pointing out that ObamaCare will gut Medicare, and that the only thing Ryan's plan would do for those more than 55 is to assure that SS will still be there.... and Ryan is actually capable of explaining the numbers behind the problem, and why his approach is a real solution.

Rubio, on the other hand, is equally a favorite of the Tea Party component of the party, but would have brought in a fair amount of Latino voters who would otherwise not have voted or would have voted for the Democrat.

As I have said, Rubio might have been a better pick, as would have Susana Martines, but while Rubio would have helped with Cuban Hispanics in FL, he would have helped very little with non-Cuban Hispanics in the rest of the nation, and in FL he will already be very vocally and visibly supporting Romney.

But saying that Romney would have been a better pick, is not quite the same as the post of yours I was responding to which argued that Ryan "adds nothing to the ticket."  That is a bit of an overstatement.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 11, 2012, 03:38:20 pm
YES!!!!!!! :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2012, 03:14:41 pm
If you want to get a quick sense of how the Ryan pick will energize the Tea Party people, look at this week's Wisconsin Senatorial primary.

Tommy Thompson has been leading in all the polls, in spite of the Tea Party endorsing Mark Neuman.  Suddenly, the Tea Party events in Wisconsin, which had been drawing a few hundred, are not drawing more than ten thousand.  If Neuman wins tomorrow, that would be a good sign in my estimation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 14, 2012, 04:30:32 pm
had been drawing a few hundred, are not drawing more than ten thousand.

Impressive when you go from a few hundred to not ten thousand.   How the hell do you even calculate that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 14, 2012, 05:03:15 pm
There was 10,001 attendees.  That is NOT ten thousand.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Ray on August 18, 2012, 05:35:54 am
Who wants to be the one that invites him back?  With our pitching rotation, the board really needs something to distract from the baseball team.

http://www.facebook.com/AcapulcoPaul
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 18, 2012, 12:01:16 pm
We don't need Paulie.  We got Curtie.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 18, 2012, 10:00:52 pm
How's the big mark newman victory party in WI going?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 18, 2012, 11:21:08 pm
We are still having the Scott Walker victory party.  Why haven't we seen you there, Oddo?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 19, 2012, 02:38:52 pm
Who wants to be the one that invites him back?  With our pitching rotation, the board really needs something to distract from the baseball team.

http://www.facebook.com/AcapulcoPaul

Paulie has a greater reach than you might imagine.

I just got this in my email on a list-server I belong to:

Quote
Interesting but strange.  Illustrated with photos as a story - intriguing idea. 
 
LARAINE A. RYAN, Attorney-at-Law
1601 Milltown Road, Suite 8, Lindell Square, Post Office Box 5733
Wilmington, DE 19808-0733
Phone (302) 993-9010
Fax (302) 397-2347
www.laraineryan.com

This email is from the Law Offices of Laraine A. Ryan, and may contain information and/or material that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute this email or any attachments.  Instead please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.

From: reilloc <reilloc@sbcglobal.net>
To: Solopol@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 10:16 AM
Subject: [Solopol] Kid Tested, Mother Approved By Paul Kwiatkowski

 
While the pretend conservatives lament and we liberals wonder, here's where we live these days:

Hialeah Drive was ****.
As kids, we all had our own version of what went down on that small street. What happened to Hialeah Drive became our own urban legend. We spread rumors: The people living there were swingers, were messed up with kiddie **** syndicates, were cult members with secret families trapped in the basement. In reality, we never witnessed any evidence of orgies or demonic happenings. At most, we saw a consistent rotation of unfamiliar cars parked out front and boarded up windows that sealed Hialeah’s inhabitants from us. In my opinion, the demise was a result of what happens to lonely, bored people and to families that never should have been.
http://lpvmagazine.com/2011/06/kid-tested-mother-approved-by-paul-kwiatkowski/
LNC
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Ray on August 19, 2012, 05:01:20 pm
Paulie has a greater reach than you might imagine.

I just got this in my email on a list-server I belong to:


wow...no wonder he doesn't have time to post on this board anymore....can believe he wrote a book....can not, however, believe it is actually being published.

read a lil and then sorta scanned to the end...talk about details no one wants to read....especially the end
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 22, 2012, 09:32:36 am
You have to admire a guy who sticks to his guns:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/politics/akin-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 22, 2012, 09:37:50 am
You have to admire a guy who sticks to his guns:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/politics/akin-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I wonder why it is when the Republicans have had a golden opportunity to steal a seat from the Democrats the last couple of years that they nominate the kookiest candidate possible to face them.

McCaskill was toast in that state if the Republicans had nominated a noncontroversial mainstream candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 22, 2012, 09:45:07 am
The extremes on both ends cease to amuse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 22, 2012, 10:12:39 am
I will say one thing for McCaskill.  She was running ads before the Republican primaries portraying Akin as the "true" conservative in the Republican primary race, in order to help his appeal there, but finishing the ads by saying he was "too" conservative for Missouri, to keep it from being totally obvious what she was doing.

Whoever came up with that advertising strategy was absolutely brilliant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 22, 2012, 11:56:00 am
Aken is an idiot, and I wish he would withdraw.

However, there isn't much reason to elect a Republican if he is going to vote like a democrat when he gets there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 22, 2012, 12:31:14 pm
At least Akin knows how to spell his Dutch name.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 22, 2012, 12:49:23 pm
The Dutch spell things fonetically.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 22, 2012, 12:55:13 pm
BTW, I just assume he's Dutch for him to make such a dumb statement.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 22, 2012, 12:56:24 pm
The Dutch spell things fonetically.

That's precisely how Goc made them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 27, 2012, 07:39:38 pm
The Republicans need to get off this "no abortion even in cases of ****" position that's becoming more common.  That's about as big of a losing issue as I can think of.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-rape_n_1834234.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 27, 2012, 09:47:58 pm
The Republicans (or anyone who is pro-life or opposes abortion) actually need to start focusing on what the real question is, which is when does life begin.

If human life begins at conception, or at ANY time before an abortion, then the conditions of the conception (****, an act of love, an accident, a deliberate attempt at pregnancy, or a wild drunken weekend) make no different to whether that human life is entitled to protection.

And if life does NOT begin prior to the time of an abortion, the conditions of the conception also do not matter.

No one asks whether it should be accepted by society for a mother to kill a child when he is a year old or five years old or 30 years old if she somehow learns that the conception was NOT a result of her loving relationship with her husband at the time of conception but was instead the result of a **** which took place at the same time she was regularly having sex with her husband.

No one asks such a question because it is an absurd question.

It is every bit as absurd to think the circumstances of conception make any difference before the child is born.

The position is not the problem.  The way those who hold the position address it is.

But the reason the position is becoming more common is because increasingly people are understanding that the real question is when life begins.  And if human life begins before the abortion, the abortion is murder... regardless the circumstances of the conception.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 28, 2012, 08:55:16 pm
That was a completely stupid post.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 28, 2012, 09:27:49 pm
Then why don't you refute it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 28, 2012, 10:15:05 pm
whats to refute Jes believes that woman that is **** and becomes pregnat should have to relive that **** every day for the rest of her life  because an egg and a sperm a zygote is human life
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on August 29, 2012, 12:14:06 am
That was a completely stupid post.
Otto, A year or so ago President Obama made a statement that went something like this: "If I said there are fish in the ocean, some republicans would immediately say: 'no, there are not'".

A couple of those republicans post here.  Don't waste your time reading what they have to say.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2012, 01:47:00 am
Besides, it is hard to keep a closed mind if you expose yourself to people that are smarter than you.

And if I understand Jes correctly, he is saying that murder is still murder even if it is for a good cause.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 02:48:20 am
whats to refute Jes believes that woman that is **** and becomes pregnat should have to relive that **** every day for the rest of her life  because an egg and a sperm a zygote is human life

Robert L., I have posted this example at least twice now to point out the foolish inconsistency of those  who support a "**** exception" to an abortion ban, and so far no one has bothered to respond, so I will direct this specifically to you to give you the opportunity.

If the reason it is acceptable to abort an unborn is because the pregnancy was the result of **** and you don;t want to force the mother to " relive that **** every day for the rest of her life," then in the following situation shouldn't the mother ba allowed to kill her five year old child: the woman is married and in a loving relationship with her husband, but she ends up savagely ****.  She also becomes pregnant.  But because she and her husband had been sexually active and in fact trying to conceive, she assumes her husband fathered the child she is carrying and not the rapist.  The child is born and five years later, during medical testing  involving DNA it is discovered that her husband is NOT the child's father, and the only other possibility is that the the rapist fathered the child.

Now we have a situation in which the mother is going to be forced "to relive that **** every day for the rest of her life."

Should she also be allowed to kill the child?

I offer the scenario NOT to contend that it should be illegal for that mother to kill her child, but instead to point out what the real question in this issue is.

That question is the point at which we conclude human life begins and should be entitled to protection under the law.  If the point is at conception, it is at conception, and the circumstances of that conception are irrelevant.  If it is only when the umbilical cord is severed, at birth, then so long as the abortionist kills the child before severing the umbilical cord, then everything is fine.  And if somewhere in between the two, then let's come up with a bright line standard on which we can all agree.

But the pro-abortion argument that there should be an exception to any restriction on abortion if the pregnancy reminds the mother of a particularly unpleasant moment in her life makes absolutely no sense.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2012, 12:00:44 pm
Robert L is a hit and run poster, Jes.  He never actually engages in a give and take discussion.  I suspect he is afraid that he will end up sounding like Oddo.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on August 29, 2012, 03:10:26 pm
too late
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 29, 2012, 03:47:41 pm
LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 29, 2012, 03:50:15 pm
Dave nobody debates with you because you just end up namee calling
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 04:12:13 pm
So, Robert L, would you care to respond to the question I posed?

Or is davep, in fact, right?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 29, 2012, 04:29:20 pm
Jes    believe life begins at berth  But let me ask you a question what if the **** victim is a 12 year old virgin should she be forced to have the baby?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 04:36:39 pm
She should not be allowed to murder the child she is carrying.  If you care to consider that forcing her to do anything, so be it.

By your standard, is it okay to strangle the child if the umbilical cord is not yet cut, or would you have the abortionist puncture a dull knife thru the soft skull of the infant after labor pains have begun but before the head has exited?

And if the concern is whether the mother might be upset be seeing the child and being reminded of the ****, are you wanting to require the mother to raise the child and block an adoption?  And why shouldn't mothers similarly be allowed to abort if they learned that the father was unfaithful while she was pregnant and would every day be reminded of that infidelity and betrayal of her trust?

And why shouldn't the mother in my original example be allowed to kill her five year old child when she learns from DNA testing that the father is not her husband, but was her rapist?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 29, 2012, 04:42:35 pm
because i Believe live begin at birth so in my opinion killing a five year old is murder  just like I think capital punishment is murder do you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 04:48:34 pm
No, I don't believe capitol punishment is murder.... but there were  four rather simple questions I posed which you did not answer.  They all remain.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2012, 04:52:05 pm
So if Robert L believes that life does not begin until birth, and Jes believes (although I don't think he has ever said so) that live begins at conception, how should we settle the question of abortion?  Toss a coin?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 29, 2012, 04:56:45 pm
But Jes is right that, if you believe that abortion is murder, it's hard to justify any exceptions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 29, 2012, 04:57:47 pm
Dave, maybe it should be up to the conscience of the mother?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 29, 2012, 05:03:18 pm
we both have strong beliefs and we are not never going to change each other opinion  have great night Robert L    A. K.A  drive BYE
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 29, 2012, 05:08:24 pm
President Obama has zero extreme positions on abortion, none, these aren't the droids your looking for.....


http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/sba-list-to-launch-missouri-ads-against-obama-on-abortion-133435.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2012, 05:10:41 pm
P2.  There aren't a lot of instances where we leave murder up to the conscience of anyone, even a mother.  Jes' point is, if a fetus is considered a human life, then abortion should be considered to be murder, even if it is the mother that wants to do the murdering.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2012, 05:57:16 pm
So if Robert L believes that life does not begin until birth, and Jes believes (although I don't think he has ever said so) that live begins at conception, how should we settle the question of abortion?  Toss a coin?

I believe life begins at conception, and I am aware of a number of people who were the products of **** and grew up with a mother who loved them nevertheless, and mothers who give thanks they did not abort because the child they bore brought them great joy.

On the other hand, if a woman is traumatically scarred by the **** and will truly be reminded daily of her attack, I will set my belief aside and allow the abortion.  How do you judge whether a **** actually occurred?  How do we judge if emotional trauma will occur?  We can't, but if it is the bone we need to toss to pro-choice people in exchange for abortion for convenience on demand, so be it.   

This is not a black and white issue.  I do not know how you compromise one's beliefs, but if such a compromise saves hundreds of thousands of lives, I'll live with it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 29, 2012, 07:18:09 pm
Maybe it should be up to the mother (rather than to you or me) to decide whether it is murder.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 07:19:15 pm
So if Robert L believes that life does not begin until birth, and Jes believes (although I don't think he has ever said so) that live begins at conception, how should we settle the question of abortion?  Toss a coin?

If I have not been clear on when I think life begins, I believe it begins at conception, and while I am perfectly willing to accept that I may be mistaken, this is a situation when any error has to go in favor of deciding too early instead of deciding too late.

Killing an innocent unborn is homicide, and if the reason for the killing was not to save the life of the mother, than that homicide is murder.  If it was to save the life of the mother (and not to save her from mental anguish or inconvenience, or embarrassment, or the pain of childbirth, or the cost of raising a child, or even some serious bodily injury), it is a justifiable homicide.  If it was NOT to save the life of the mother, it was murder, whether the laws on the books define it that way or not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 07:26:24 pm
Dave, maybe it should be up to the conscience of the mother?

Should if be up to the conscience of Dave's mother NOW as to whether she should kill him?

If it is murder, it should not more be up to the conscience of the mother if the child is still in the womb than if the child is in the crib, or in grade school, or collecting Social Security.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 07:33:27 pm
On the other hand, if a woman is traumatically scarred by the **** and will truly be reminded daily of her attack, I will set my belief aside and allow the abortion.

If she allows an adoption, she will no more be "reminded daily of here attack" than if she aborts... and she will be free of the knowledge that she committed murder.

The entire argument that the woman will be reminded daily of the attack if she delivers the child is a crock, particularly because of the adoption option.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 29, 2012, 08:07:05 pm
It's not murder, Jes.  You are wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 08:07:56 pm
Play, define "murder."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2012, 08:08:21 pm
Maybe it should be up to the mother (rather than to you or me) to decide whether it is murder.

I am not sure why we would leave it up to any individual to decide whether or not it is murder.  I assume that most murderers feel that their acts are justified.

However, like CurtOne, I would be willing to compromise on this issue and allow an exception for ****, if abortion were prohibited in most other cases.  I would, however, want to see certain requirements, such as the **** being reported to the police at the first opportunity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 29, 2012, 08:09:31 pm
Jes, you must be joking.  You're a lawyer.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 29, 2012, 08:13:40 pm
Here's an interesting argument.  Don't know whether I agree with it, but it's interesting:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/abortion_murder.htm
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on August 29, 2012, 08:18:27 pm
:)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 08:18:43 pm
Jes, you must be joking.  You're a lawyer.

I am not kidding at all.

But I note you have not offered a definition for murder.

Let me help.  I has for thousands of years been defined as "the unjustified taking of human life."  Whether you were looking at common low definitions, or statutory definitions, that is how it has been defined, in virtually every society.

That is why the only real question is when life begins.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2012, 08:18:45 pm
P2, I struggle as to where you draw the line in the compromise I suggested above, but where do you draw the line in the solution you offer?  If my wife has both Altzheimers and cancer, and is suffering horribly, and, in my mind, putting her out of her misery is not murder, it's okay?  I know you don't agree to that.

Regardless of political party or whether you believe life begins at conception or birth, there is schitzoid behavior when we charge a guy with double murder for killing a pregnant woman. 

If the mother can decide that it isn't murder, may the father come to the same conclusion?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2012, 08:32:48 pm
Here's an interesting argument.  Don't know whether I agree with it, but it's interesting:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/abortion_murder.htm


Well, the guy is wrong, clearly and flatly.

He claims that, "And murder, in the way that we define it in all other instances, involves the intentional death of another human person."

That is wrong.  To illustrate his error one need look no further than the felony murder rule, where any death which results from the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, such as a burglary, can be prosecuted as murder, even if the defendant believed the home he was burglarizing at the time was empty, and he did nothing to intentionally cause anyone's death.

In other words, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Now, let's look at the real guts of his argument:
Quote
"If a woman and her physician think they're killing a non-sentient organism, then--even if the embryo or fetus were, unbeknownst to them, a sentient human person--they would not be committing murder. At most, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. But even involuntary manslaughter involves criminal negligence, and it would be very hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing that a pre-viable embryo or fetus is a sentient human person when we don't actually know this to be the case."

Now, let's also look at the actions of a true racist skinhead, someone who had been raised to genuinely believe that blacks were not human beings, not a "sentient human person," and who then deliberately kills a black man.  Under the argument this bozo presents,
Quote
"they would not be committing murder. At most, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter."

This not an apples and oranges comparison.  This is pointing out the utter fallacy of the argument, and a fallacy the author likely did not see because he is so eager to ignore the obvious -- that killing an innocent unborn child is murder.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2012, 08:37:33 pm
Sorry disbarred lawyer, not buying your personhood for zygotes arguement. Neither could the wacky conservative State of Mississippi or Colorado (Twice).

As a libertarian shouldn't you be on your knees letting the all mighty free market decide the issue? Instead of the government intrusion your adovating.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2012, 08:39:22 pm
And in case your wondering a 5 week old fetus is NOT the same as a five year old.

So your hapless pandering of partial birth abortion is ignorant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 29, 2012, 08:41:21 pm
Isn't that interesting, and poorly thought out.  Human life begins at conception abortion=murder.  Human life begins at x event (birth, movement, viability), until x event human life isn't involved, abortion isn't murder.  Stating it would something a kin to an accidental death if the person believes it isn't a human life, would open an interesting legal defense to other murders.  Taken to its extreme, KKK guy believes african-americans aren't human, killing them isn't murder. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2012, 08:43:47 pm
And a 5 year old is NOT the same as a 10 year old.  You have a habit of saying irrelevant things and implying that they have some bearing on the argument.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2012, 08:51:32 pm
Otto, is a five year old equal to a 5 minute old?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2012, 08:56:20 pm
No.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2012, 09:04:39 pm
Abortion is NOT murder.

If you think abortion is murder it is merely a political point of view.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2012, 09:23:45 pm
Okay, how old, for you, does a human need to be to be regarded as human life?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2012, 09:26:32 pm
Jes - I know that there is such a thing as justifiable homicide.  But does the specific laws define what makes it circumstances make it justifiable, or is that totally left to the courts in each case?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2012, 09:33:39 pm
The question of human life is false to the conditions of the issue.

A fetus is not a person until it is born. Until it is born the rights of the mother supercede the fetus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 29, 2012, 09:40:58 pm
What make a human a person at birth that doesn't exist 1 second before?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2012, 09:58:19 pm
The question of human life is false to the conditions of the issue.

A fetus is not a person until it is born. Until it is born the rights of the mother supercede the fetus.


So, for you, a fetus out of the womb five minutes isn't human yet.  I'm just trying to find out when you feel life is real.  You said five minutes is not equal to five years.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 29, 2012, 10:43:50 pm
Still can't get yourself to the point of birth can you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 29, 2012, 10:45:24 pm
"If you think abortion is murder it is merely a political point of view."

This is clearly a fallacious thing to say. For those who feel this way about abortion, it's not about politics. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but don't denigrate their motives.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 29, 2012, 10:46:21 pm
Still can't get yourself to the point of birth can you.

So human rights are founded on the ability to sustain one's own life?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on August 29, 2012, 11:08:35 pm
If that is so Tico I know a few 30 yr old buddies who won't qualify.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 29, 2012, 11:40:13 pm
Abortion policy should reflect some balance between the interests of the mother and the child.  It's why I don't like Roe vs. Wade because it doesn't have any regard for the child's interest at all.  Charles Krauthamer had a good column a while back where he made the point that abortion policy should be in the hands of lawmakers where it can be legislated and represent the will of the people, one way or the other.

Still, the mother shouldn't be forced to carry the child of her rapist, when there are legitimate questions on when life begins. That's an extreme position on the other end that doesn't show any regard for the interests of the mother. 

If that's a position that pro-life advocates are now going to take, I can't blame pro-choice people for wanting to keep abortion as a protected right, even though it's generally an abhorrent practice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 30, 2012, 06:52:57 am
Otto, YOU were the one that said five minute old was not equal to a five year old.  That's what confused me.  So you are saying that birth is your determiner of life.  That's fair.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2012, 06:58:14 am
Jes - I know that there is such a thing as justifiable homicide.  But does the specific laws define what makes it circumstances make it justifiable, or is that totally left to the courts in each case?

It is going to be defined by statute in each state in this country, just as murder is defined by statute, but there is remarkable conformity in those various statutes and different definitions, just as there is also remarkable conformity with the common law definitions which evolved entirely in the courtrooms over centuries of decisions without statutory definitions.

Human society has always had the concept of murder, and as soon as societies have begun addressing the issue and looking at what homicides were murder and should be punished and how, those societies also began looking at what homicides were justifiable and should not cause the defendant to be punished.... and those justifications have also been remarkably consistent.

This is why we do not need to look to a statutory definition for murder or for justifiable homicide in a general discussion (though in the trial of a specific individual, the precise statutory definitions  are paramount and may decide the outcome).

This is why we can quite comfortably refer to abortion as murder.... IF we have first determined the true threshhold question of when life begins.

There have been some societies in the past where people truly agreed with the otto position, that an infant five minutes old was qualitatively different from a five year old, societies in which parents were allowed and even encouraged to closely look at their newborn infants to try to determine whether that newborn might somehow appear "defective" and perhaps prone to be a drain on society as an adult or at least not a good contributor to society.  And if the parents made that decision they were not only allowed to but EXPECTED to kill the infant child, generally because those societies had some sort of definition of when the child became human which did not begin even at birth.

But that is not this society.

In fact, as Curt has pointed out, this society embraces the utterly schizoid approach of considering an unborn child a human life for the purpose of parents filing suits for damages if someone's actions cause injury to the unborn child, and even to allow the criminal prosecution for murder if the actions of someone other than the mother kill the unborn child.... even if that happened at a point in the pregnancy when the mother would be legally allowed to kill the child.

This makes sense only on one level, and that is a political level, where the political pandering for votes will contort logic and reason into incredible pretzels to attract sufficient support to get elected, and then often even further to get laws passed.... just as we have seen some posters here say they would be perfectly willing to do on the abortion issue in order to reduce the number of abortions overall.  Those posters have indicated they believe life begins at conception and that all abortion is murder and that the possibility for a **** victim being caused to revisit the trauma of the **** if she delivers a child resulting from the **** (and that is all that it is is a possibility of bad memories, a possibility which is equally true for the woman who was **** and aborts the child and later realizes what she did was murder an innocent life and has to deal with that) should be sufficient to allow an exception to any ban on abortion.

Excuse me for not finding the political process as a good source for morality or moral convictions.

Abortion is murder.

And anyone siding with otto on the issue should have their skin crawl.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2012, 07:30:42 am
JR, while it is clear you have thought some about the issue of abortion, it is also clear that you have not thought a great deal about it.

Abortion policy should reflect some balance between the interests of the mother and the child.  It's why I don't like Roe vs. Wade because it doesn't have any regard for the child's interest at all.

You need to reed the decision.  It DOES consider the interests of the unborn child in its equation.  When the decision balanced the interests of the prenatal life with the interests of the health of the mother, the Court WAS showing a regard for the child's interests.  Not enough, but it was showing a regard.  For the full decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html   
Quote
The third reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [n45] The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.


Still, the mother shouldn't be forced to carry the child of her rapist, when there are legitimate questions on when life begins. That's an extreme position on the other end that doesn't show any regard for the interests of the mother.

If you are in a distressed small plane having engine problems and short of fuel and you have someone in your small plane who you are not certain is alive and you toss them out of the plane at 5K feet in order to reduce the weight of the plane and slightly extend the distance the fuel on board will take you and increase your own chance of living... and it is later determined that the person you tossed out as so much baggage was very much alive.... get ready to be prosecuted for murder, and you can try to argue that your actions were justified as self defense if you wish, but YOU will have the burden of proving that.

At the same time even the absolutist position I advocate on abortion in fact shows regard for the interests of the mother.  If her life is at real risk if she carries that child any longer, then she can reasonably defend herself with such force as is necessary to protect her own life, even including abortion.  That is rather clearly a regard for the interests of the mother... exactly the same regard accorded anyone else when they kill another person.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on August 30, 2012, 09:14:09 am
The results from our primary election on Tuesday are in.

It seemed like one of the county commissioner candidates had as many roadside signs as candidates for all the other offices combined.  He came in a distant third.  Was he a poor choice or was it a backlash over all the visual pollution he caused?  Probably some of each.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 30, 2012, 09:36:13 am
Heh, I hope it was the latter, regardless of party.  Not only did he have the most, I'll bet the signs will be there come Christmas.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on August 30, 2012, 02:50:13 pm
Otto, YOU were the one that said five minute old was not equal to a five year old.  That's what confused me.  So you are saying that birth is your determiner of life.  That's fair.

Stupid, but fair...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 30, 2012, 02:56:47 pm
I didn't say I agreed with it, just that if that's his stand, it finally gives me a fair chance to respond if he ever wishes to do so.  Sorry if it wasn't clear.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 30, 2012, 03:48:51 pm
I don't see the issue as being when life starts.  The issue (for me) is when does the elimination of that life constitute murder.  Hopefully, all would agree that purposeful killing of a newborn is murder.  If you believe that a zygote can be murdered, then there is little to discuss.  For everyone else, it's a question of at what point in embryological development does society gain the right to overrule the mother in terms of survival of the embryo.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 30, 2012, 04:06:08 pm
Until birth your "life" is in the hands of your mother.

Until birth you are not a person.

Has any parent named a zygote?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 30, 2012, 04:09:07 pm
P2, the reason I don't agree with you is that not all women are like my wife, your wife, and the women you and I come into contact with in our academia and in life.  Almost all the women I am close to would do as you suggested and come to a conclusion as to whether it was murder or not and act accordingly.

Unfortunately, many women, especially young women, are concerned with making a quick decision based on their current circumstances.  How convenient is this for me, now?  How is this going to impact my future...it destroys all my plans.  And a lot of the counseling out there is based on population explosion mentality and some hedonism.  I've witnessed this firsthand in my position.

Here's why I got involved in this discussion: this idiot in Missouri, the Republican running for Senate, and his asinine statement that **** can't result in pregnancy: from that the leap has been that people don't care about the trauma of a woman having to live their life being reminded every day of that event.

I understand that.  I think there are enough examples of people who still were able to love and raise such children, but there are others who cannot.  I can allow myself the exception for those people.

But what about the hypocrisy of not caring about the trauma and mental health of the 28 year old who was counseled, almost bullied, into an abortion when she was 17, 19, or 22?   Actually, mental health professionals will tell you, regardless of how they feel about abortion rights, that they counsel FAR more women who feel that what they did was wrong and they had done something selfish back then than they counsel **** victims who had abortions.

I'm saying that this difficult topic needs a fair hearing on both ends.

I repudiate that Missouri idiot.  But I wonder when I'll hear the other side of this mental trauma issue.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 30, 2012, 04:11:38 pm
For the record, I support abortion in cases of ****, incest, and to save the life of the mother.  I am not in good standing with my church or my "political" party in those stands, but I am opposed to abortion for selfish convenience and the avoidance of responsibility and consequences.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 30, 2012, 04:25:40 pm
I agree fully with you, Curt.  But that doesn't mean I think that a mother who disagrees is a murderer.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2012, 05:04:14 pm
But I wonder when I'll hear the other side of this mental trauma issue.

In the mainstream media, the answer is never.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2012, 05:07:53 pm
For the record, I support abortion in cases of ****, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

25 year old woman and her 23 year old brother have consensual sex and a pregnancy results.

And you support an abortion in that case, while also claiming you are "opposed to abortion for selfish convenience and the avoidance of responsibility and consequences."

Sorry for thinking those positions are more than a bit at odds with each other.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 30, 2012, 05:27:26 pm
Otto, does the ability of a fetus to survive on it's own impact your opinion? Obviously, for much of the pregnancy, the fetus is dependent on the mother, but there is also a good portion of the pregnancy when the fetus can survive just fine on its own. Just because the fetus has yet to be born does not mean that it still needs the mother to survive.

If your definition of personhood is constrained by the ability to sustain one's own life, does that impact your opinion of the rights of the extremely disabled, terminally I'll, etc?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 30, 2012, 05:38:38 pm
If it allows us to eliminate the million other abortions every year, I will certainly be able to accept abortion whenever a 23 year old woman is impregnated by her 25 year old brother.

It is foolish to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on August 30, 2012, 05:39:21 pm
Let's all hold our breath waiting on a response to that one...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2012, 05:53:46 pm
If it allows us to eliminate the million other abortions every year, I will certainly be able to accept abortion whenever a 23 year old woman is impregnated by her 25 year old brother.

It is foolish to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

It is also foolish to agree to exceptions far broader than needed to produce an agreement requiring a compromise of genuine principle.

When you can easily point out that the broad exception sought (all incest) is far greater than even those asking for the except can justify, it makes sense to point it out to narrow the exception, or even to get rid of it entirely.

Because a **** exception would already include any statutory ****, virtually any incest those wanting that exception could actually justify would already be covered by a **** exception.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 30, 2012, 08:01:38 pm
The situation you mentioned, where a 23 year old woman is impregnated by his 25 year old brother is not covered by the statutory **** clause .  I assume you wouldn't have mentioned it if it was insignificant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2012, 08:18:12 pm
davep, you are right.  It would not be covered by a **** exception to a ban on abortion, but it WOULD be covered by an incest exception, and yet it is nothing remotely resembling a sympathetic situation which most people would support as an exception to an abortion prohibition.  Curt probably rather accurately reflected the position of a great many of the wobblers on abortion -- and by wobblers I mean those who say they oppose all abortion unless it is to save the mother's life, but that they are not particularly upset by exceptions for **** or incest, even while they insist they are "opposed to abortion for selfish convenience and the avoidance of responsibility and consequences."  That opposition would certainly appear to cover the situation I have presented.

In other words, if there is going to be an exception to a ban on abortion, there is no need to include an incest exception when a **** exception is already going to cover any incest where an abortion would not be "for selfish convenience and the avoidance of responsibility and consequences."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 30, 2012, 08:54:17 pm
Okay, I had to open some ignore boxes to see what the discussion was about, Dave.  The reason I am willing to make those exceptions is pure and simple a matter of "choice."  Saving the life of the mother has been a long standing value in Judeo-Christian history.   **** is clearly not the choice of the woman to have sex.  Incest is similar.  Yes, a 23 woman can get impregnated by a 25 year old brother, but most studies of incest indicate that there is still an aggressor, normally the male or the older participant.  Incest is often a crime of abuse of authority.  The female fears being rejected by someone she cares for.  It's "****" of sorts.  It's why every state has laws against teacher-student relations; same concept.  That's why I'm willing to make those 3 exceptions.  The woman should not suffer consequences for sex which was not truly consensual.

Yes, it is inconsistent with my belief that life begins at conception, but I'm with Dave that if we can eliminate many of the convenience abortions, I'll live with it. 

We need to face some facts.  The abortion genie is out of the bottle, and we're not putting it back.  Anti-abortion Presidents and Congresses have been in power and nothing has happened.  It's too hot a potato.  What we need to do is get to a point where we eliminate as many unnecessary and selfish abortions as we can while providing those who believe in "the right to choose" the felling that they are surrendering 100% of it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 30, 2012, 08:55:14 pm
I assume this is the quote from Curt that you referred to

"For the record, I support abortion in cases of ****, incest, and to save the life of the mother. "

In it he mentions the same exception for incest that I have seen a great many people mention, when they are talking about abortions.

I certainly agree that if an incest exception is not necessary to reach a compromise between the parties, then we should not include it.  But my point was that if that is part of what it takes to eliminate the millions of convenience abortions, we would be foolish to refuse to allow it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 30, 2012, 08:57:57 pm
Okay, we all posted about the same time.

Incest is far too often, almost always, authoritarian ****.  We often forget that.  It is seldom true consensual sex.  And when it is, the woman probably wouldn't ask for an abortion, because it would expose both individuals to arrest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2012, 10:18:07 pm
Incest is far too often, almost always, authoritarian ****.  We often forget that.

YOU appear to.  I have not, and have tried to make clear that if you have authoritarian ****, you have ****, and there is no need then for an incest exception.

As to your belief that an adult woman coming forward to seek an incest exception abortion for true consensual incest exposing herself to criminal prosecution, she would not.

The criminal law not only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the defendant is the one who committed it, the law also requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that crime within the jurisdiction of that court -- in other words in the COUNTY of a state court's prosecution.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 30, 2012, 10:23:32 pm
ticohans

Who said anything about viability? I stated that I believe a fetus does not have legal rights that supersede those of the mother.

BTW we constrain the rights of people already born all the time.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 30, 2012, 10:42:15 pm
Can you please provide 1 example where someone's right to life is supersede without being convicted of a crime in the US?  Just one?

Curt luckily for the US the younger generation is pro-life, times are a changing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 30, 2012, 11:17:11 pm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/generational-differences-abortion-narrow.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/generational-differences-abortion-narrow.aspx)

The more the times are achangin the more it stays the same.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 30, 2012, 11:38:07 pm
You need to learn to read, from your own link.

"As a result, 18- to 29-year-olds are now roughly tied with seniors as the most likely of all age groups to hold this position on abortion -- although all four groups are fairly close in their views. This is a sharp change from the late 1970s, when seniors were substantially more likely than younger age groups to want abortion to be illegal."

18 to 29 Illegal in all circumstances 1970 18%  1990 somewhere between 12-15% 2009 23%
18 to 29 Legal in all circumstance 1970 26%, 1990 36%, 2009 24%

In fact the 18-29 age group had THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of ILLEGAL IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY AGE GROUP.  But please don't let the facts get in your way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 30, 2012, 11:51:22 pm
I have read my Gallup and I think you quit too soon.

Excerpt:

"The analysis finds no steady increase or decrease in support for abortion among any of the various age cohorts over the last 35 years. Rather, all age groups became more supportive of legal abortion under any circumstances in the early 1990s, and all subsequently shed some of that support in the late 1990s, with further decline seen since then. These shifts are consistent with Gallup's trend in overall support for abortion..."

Bottom Line

Given the abortion issue's status as a contentious social issue, the subject might be expected to spark different reactions from younger versus older Americans the way gay rights certainly does. That was somewhat true in the first few years after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, when older adults were decidedly more conservative than younger adults in their preferences about legality. However, in recent years, the generational distinctions have blurred. Support for abortion that is "legal under any circumstances" is similar among age groups ranging from 18 to 64; only seniors show significantly less support for this. At the same time, young adults are now roughly tied with seniors as being the most likely age group to favor having abortion "illegal in all circumstances."

Gallup's cohort analysis suggests that attitudes toward abortion grow neither more liberal nor more conservative with age, per se. While the views of each cohort have changed since 1975, those fluctuations in support for legal abortion have been consistent with broader cultural shifts on the issue."

I don't see the big times are a changing assertion you claim.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 31, 2012, 12:20:34 am
You didn't read in closely or understand what the numbers are saying.

2005-2009 the 18-29 age group had a +1 in wanting to make abortion illegal.
1990-1994 the 18-29 age group had a -23 in wanting to make abortion illegal.
1975-1979 the 18-29 age group had a -9 in wanting to make abortion illegal.

In 2005-2009 the group wanting to make abortion illegal by the highest percentage was the 18-29 age group.  The first time in this survey it wasn't the 65+ age group.  Yep, nothing to see here.  Nothing important at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 31, 2012, 09:46:59 am
Otto, your previous posts have clearly indicated that your belief about a fetus' lack of rights has to do with the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother for birth. Did you misspeak? How is that not about the independent viability of life?

And is it that the fetus has no rights, or that the mother's supersede those of the fetus?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2012, 10:00:43 am
I haven't been paying much attention to the Convention.  Has Romney generated the kind of energy in the electorate to meaningfully boost his campaign?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on August 31, 2012, 10:01:40 am
No.  He has no chance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2012, 10:02:16 am
And here I thought he was a lock.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2012, 10:02:50 am
Jeff, at least I'm happy to see that you have gotten beyond your usual negativity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2012, 10:03:08 am
Unless you want Romney to win, of course.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on August 31, 2012, 12:09:15 pm
I haven't been paying much attention to the Convention.  Has Romney generated the kind of energy in the electorate to meaningfully boost his campaign?

I feel like the electorate is being lulled to sleep and being led to take the attitude of, "Obama four more years . . . uh, yeah, sure, whatever."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2012, 12:17:11 pm
A large plurality of the electorate generally doesn't much give a damb.  Or if they do, their opinion is seldom formed because of the issues involved.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2012, 01:00:32 pm
What did you think about Clint's performance?  What little I saw of it was pretty funny if bizarre.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 31, 2012, 01:22:25 pm
I thought it was the typical Republican brainstorm of looking for a way to overshadow your candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 31, 2012, 01:48:40 pm
Bizarre doesn't even get close to what clint eastwood provided.

Take the referrence to the War in Afganistan.

1. It was a justified action against a nation which harbored the man responsible for the deaths of thousands on 9/11. So clint blames President Barack Hussein Obama for the war and whether or not we consulted the Russians first?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on August 31, 2012, 02:04:40 pm
ticohans

The fetus has no rights which trump that of the Mother. A zygote has the potential to be a person, but is not a person. A fetus is becoming a human life, but is not a person until birth.

Hell, a christian god doesn't recognize a person until they are baptized.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 31, 2012, 03:55:51 pm
Otto, your discussion of theology is clueless. Don't bother.

You have yet to answer the question as to WHY the mother's rights trump the fetus', in your opinion. At one point you commented that the fetus can't get to birth without the mother. That seemed to indicate that your opinion as to where one's rights begin an the other's end is related to the viability of life. Is that correct? Or is your reasoning different?

I understand that you believe the mother's rights always trump the fetus'. I'm asking WHY. What is the reasoning behind your opinion? What is it that defines human life? Just the act of passing through a ****?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 31, 2012, 04:11:37 pm
Lol can't say vag1na
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2012, 04:12:39 pm
Twat's the matter with the censor?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 31, 2012, 04:16:38 pm
There's another pun in there with the word can't, but I'm not going further than that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2012, 07:30:14 pm
Can you please provide 1 example where someone's right to life is supersede without being convicted of a crime in the US?  Just one?

In any self defense case.  Or in war.  Or any time our fearless leaders concludes that the person he is ordering killed will score him some political points as he claims they were terrorists and therefore not entitled to a trial.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2012, 07:33:41 pm
Gallup's cohort analysis suggests that attitudes toward abortion grow neither more liberal nor more conservative with age, per se.

And nothing in CUBluejays suggested that he things anyone's "attitudes toward abortion grow (either) more liberal nor more conservative with age, per se."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2012, 07:37:07 pm
Otto, your discussion of theology  anything is clueless. Don't bother.

Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 31, 2012, 08:07:17 pm
I don't mind attempting a rational conversation with him, but I'm not going to entertain obviously baiting statements about theology.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 02, 2012, 12:20:54 pm
I have never posted a U tube link on this board before, but this is worth looking at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZQvSCGaJI&feature=share
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 03, 2012, 01:44:55 pm
Having an discussion with an empty chair would have been more interesting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 04, 2012, 11:13:15 am
This is what a "fetus" looks like at 12 weeks, legal to kill in all states.  Tell me this isn't a person.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on September 04, 2012, 12:30:24 pm
There's too many people here - some sacrifices must be made
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 04, 2012, 05:28:10 pm
There's too many people here - some sacrifices must be made

Any time you want to sacrifice yourself, I feel you should be free to do so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 11, 2012, 12:21:09 pm
I'm a bit behind the times...but after reading/skimming through this discussion it sorta makes me laugh. Not in the funny way, but the ironic way.

Here's a bunch of dudes sitting around discussing what a woman can and can't do with her body. Seems about the norm though, unfortunately. I believe a man has a right to be involved in this decision process, but until a man can give birth...theirs is just an opinion that the woman should regard with the utmost importance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really pro-Choice, but I'm not pro-Life either (I am a Republican, just throwing that out there). I'd say I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't think I could ever willingly choose abortion for myself (except in the situation where my life was at risk, or possibly ****, but I can't really speak theoretically about that as I have no idea what I would actually feel in that situation and hope I never face it). The most selfish thing I've ever seen someone do was give her life up for her baby. Now that baby has no mom and a dad that resents the fact that he lost his wife for that baby and has to care for her on his own. Sure there is a problem with the dad resenting the daughter, who had no say in the matter obviously, but the issue still remains. He has a very human reaction to a very delicate situation. He loves his daughter and wants to do good by her, but he's really struggling with it.

However, I don't feel like I have, or even should have, the ability to determine what any other woman wants to do with her body. You can talk about murder all you want, but having a baby requires a viable body for that...so why shouldn't the person sustaining the pregnancy have any say in whether she wants it or not? I get the whole birth control arguement, or abstinence and whatnot, but lets face it...they will never work 100% of the time.

Here's an example, and I'd be curious on your outlook at this one, what if a drug addicted woman got pregnant? She realizes it early on and wants an abortion because she's addicted to drugs and won't ever get clean. Should we refuse her an abortion and make her carry a baby while she continues to get high off whatever drug she is taking? We can't MAKE her get sober...why should we be able to make her have a baby that she very obviously didn't want in the first place? What kind of life is that going to give that child? It is highly likely that baby will be born with birth defects, many of those will be fatal. So why do we make that fetus suffer through its mother's drug abuse? Isn't that cruel and inhuman?

As someone said earlier, abortion isn't cut and dry. There is no black and white answer to it. But the government also can't take it case by case. I don't think a woman should just get an abortion because she didn't mean to get pregnant or she doesn't want a baby right now. What we need is better counseling on adoption. Yes it is a sacrifice the woman will have to make to carry that baby, but there are so many couples out there who can't have babies and desperately want to adopt, why don't we push that more? There needs to be better laws in place to enforce adoption as well. I've heard too many stories, and even witnessed a few of them at the hospitals I've worked at, of an adoption all set up and ready to go and then the birth mother can't let the baby go after she delivers. Obviously there is an attachment there, but that is a short term answer to a long term problem. There shouldn't be the ability to "take it back". How do we do that? I have no clue, because then you step into a whole different world of mother's rights and it gets sticky there.

An informed decision with an MD and also a psychiatrist and an adoption specialist would be a good start, in my opinion. Too often women don't get the full story before they make these decisions. The MD can tell her what to expect from a health stand point, the psychiatrist can tell what to expect from a mental stand point, and the adoption specialist can give them a glimpse into an option that is sorely overlooked. Then the 3 of them together with the pregnant woman can make the final decision.

But that's just an idea. I'm sure there are many downsides to it that I'm not seeing right now...but at least its a start towards what would be best for mankind as a whole.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2012, 12:30:38 pm
Redbirdfan, without getting wrapped up in the rhetoric of what a woman can do with her own body, can you answer the question of when human life begins?

And at whatever point life begins, is not that person then entitled to protection under the law?

BOTH parents, are required under the law after the child is born to do a great number of things for the care of the child, and prohibited from doing others -- in other words, the government is regulating their "body."  And it does so for the sake of protecting a human life which is in no way independent and able to live on its own.

The feminist rhetoric helps lose sight of the real question, which, once answered, resolves most other questions.

When does human life begin?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 11, 2012, 12:54:13 pm
I'm no expert, but I gather that in Judaism, life is believed to begin at birth (when the baby is more than halfway out of the mother).  Prior to this time, it is mandatory to have an abortion if the mother's life is in jeopardy:

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2012, 01:08:59 pm
Play, the question is not what might a given faith teach, the question is what do YOU believe, how do YOU reach that belief, and how would you persuade others to share it.  The question of, when life begins really does resolve the issue, and some believe that it begins at some point AFTER the child is born and the umbilical cord is cut.

I am not at the moment contending they are wrong.

I am simply pointing out that their answer to the threshold question of when life begins likely resolves the issue for them.

Let's just address the right question before we argue much about what should or shouldn't be allowed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 11, 2012, 01:15:12 pm
As I don't see it as a scientific question with a right-wrong answer, I would probably adopt the beliefs of my religion on this matter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2012, 01:44:02 pm
You are still avoiding a position.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 11, 2012, 01:46:02 pm
The discussion on when I feel life begins is really not relavent. It's my opinion and you won't agree with it so you'll automatically consider my opinion wrong. However, since I know you won't drop the issue and completely ignore the rest of my opinion until I tell you, I think life begins when the baby takes it's first breath. Until that point, I feel the fetus is a part of the mother, the mother has grown that baby inside of her using her body to feed and nourish it. Once that cord is cut, it's no longer part of the mother but an entirely different person. Again, this is just my OPINION. I'm not saying I'm correct and that everyone else is wrong, it's just how I view it.

Regardless of protection of the law, why does a woman have to give up her body to a fetus? Does she not have any protections under the law or does her body just become a vessel for this fetus? To ignore this issue is to ignore a huge part of why women don't want to be pro-life. It's my body and I feel I should be able to make decisions that affect it.

And by NO means am I a feminist. I just don't want the government to tell me what I can and can't do with my person. It's not the governments place to make that choice for me.

Also,

Quote
BOTH parents, are required under the law after the child is born to do a great number of things for the care of the child, and prohibited from doing others -- in other words, the government is regulating their "body."  And it does so for the sake of protecting a human life which is in no way independent and able to live on its own.

This is not completely true. If a parent chooses to have nothing to do with their child, they can make that choice. Yes they should pay child support and other things, but lets face it, it doesn't always happen. So no, they aren't REQUIRED to do anything. The government can tell them to, but they have the ability to do otherwise, even though it is illegal. With a pregnancy, if the government says no abortions, then that's that...OR you'll see women doing terrible things to achieve the goal they desire...but that's a whole different topic.

Just trying to give you all a women's perspective. You can't wave a woman's rights simply because she is pregnant. While she (AND her partner) can prevent pregnancy, not every pregnancy is intentional, even if precautions were taken.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 11, 2012, 02:03:43 pm
I'm Jewish, Jes.  Does that help?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 11, 2012, 02:45:38 pm
P2. that's not my understanding of Judaism's primary teaching.  Old Testament teachings are that the Lord already knows individuals in the womb.  Perhaps there's a difference here between Orthodox and Reformed?  It was always my training that most of Christianity's teachings regarding abortion and the sanctity of life were drawn from the Torah and the Prophets.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2012, 02:51:57 pm
I'm Jewish, Jes.  Does that help?

Not really.

There are plenty of Catholics who do not believe that live begins with conception.  And I would venture a guess that there is some difference of opinion among Jews on when life begins.

The question remains.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 11, 2012, 02:57:56 pm
I guess my answer wasn't good enough!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on September 11, 2012, 03:08:45 pm
Shocking!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2012, 03:13:18 pm
The discussion on when I feel life begins is really not relavent. It's my opinion and you won't agree with it so you'll automatically consider my opinion wrong. However, since I know you won't drop the issue and completely ignore the rest of my opinion until I tell you, I think life begins when the baby takes it's first breath. Until that point, I feel the fetus is a part of the mother, the mother has grown that baby inside of her using her body to feed and nourish it. Once that cord is cut, it's no longer part of the mother but an entirely different person. Again, this is just my OPINION. I'm not saying I'm correct and that everyone else is wrong, it's just how I view it.

Regardless of protection of the law, why does a woman have to give up her body to a fetus? Does she not have any protections under the law or does her body just become a vessel for this fetus? To ignore this issue is to ignore a huge part of why women don't want to be pro-life. It's my body and I feel I should be able to make decisions that affect it.

And by NO means am I a feminist. I just don't want the government to tell me what I can and can't do with my person. It's not the governments place to make that choice for me.

While I agree that it is not the role of government to tell you what you can do with "your person" so long as you are not directly harming anyone else, it IS appropriate for government to prohibit injury of ANOTHER person.  Government generally criminalizes murder, and in so doing it is making a choice for you.  It is prohibiting you from using YOUR person to kill another.

The discussion on when YOU believe life begins IS relevant, because it will generally determine where you fall on the abortion issue.  You believe human life begins with the child's first independent breath (I say independent breath because prior to birth it is breathing through the mother's umbilical cord -- there is oxygen in its system).  And that is fine.  It is also one of the reasons you support abortion: you do not consider it to be murder.

Quote
    BOTH parents, are required under the law after the child is born to do a great number of things for the care of the child, and prohibited from doing others -- in other words, the government is regulating their "body."  And it does so for the sake of protecting a human life which is in no way independent and able to live on its own.


This is not completely true. If a parent chooses to have nothing to do with their child, they can make that choice. Yes they should pay child support and other things, but lets face it, it doesn't always happen. So no, they aren't REQUIRED to do anything. The government can tell them to, but they have the ability to do otherwise, even though it is illegal. With a pregnancy, if the government says no abortions, then that's that...OR you'll see women doing terrible things to achieve the goal they desire...but that's a whole different topic.

Just trying to give you all a women's perspective. You can't wave a woman's rights simply because she is pregnant. While she (AND her partner) can prevent pregnancy, not every pregnancy is intentional, even if precautions were taken.

Actually, it is true.

You are addressing child support, but you are ignoring a great many other situations.

A parent has a toddler in the car and forgets the infant, leaving the child in the enclosed car for several hours in the summer heat while shopping.  The parent will routinely be prosecuted.  Some states will prohibit the parent from exposing the minor child to certain things.  States will require the parents to feed and clothe the child in their care.  And states routinely jail parents for failing to pay child support.

Now, of course, if you took the approach some societies do, that a child is not a human until age 3 or age 5 or perhaps even until age 20, you could avoid all of those concerns... until the child reached that magic age of becoming human.

As to your last comment about pregnancy sometimes being unintentional (actually MOST pregnancies thru history have been unintentional), it is much the same is a small plane pilot does all he can to assure that he is the only one on board his plane when he takes off, and then at 5,000 feet he learns a someone snuck on board, against his will, and perhaps even that as a result of this his flight has become much more dangerous and the added weight might make it quite unlikely that he will be able to safely reach his destination.  Believe it or not, the pilot is not allowed to toss that stow-away out of the plane.  It would be considered murder.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 11, 2012, 03:54:32 pm
It's interesting to hear the debate from a man's perspective. Having had this discussion with a woman led to a totally different tone and conversation. Makes sense though, a man never has to face the reality of actually being pregnant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 11, 2012, 04:08:28 pm
Rubberfin, I thought your posts were well thought out.

I'm not sure the argument that man never has to face the reality of being pregnant is pertinent.  I probably won't have breast cancer either, but it doesn't mean I can't empathize with someone who does.  Just because you can't have prostate problems...   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2012, 04:10:46 pm
RedBird, our genitals don't dictate our positions (I remember saying that before in a very different setting.... never mind).  There are plenty of women who would echo the positions I offered here.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on September 11, 2012, 04:45:00 pm
All these breathless Obama commercials trying to scare women in the same way they try to "Medi"scare 90 year-olds  are B.S., and with all due respect, I don't have much patience for those who believe them.

Who really thinks anything will change wrt a "woman's right to choose" regardless who wins? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on September 11, 2012, 04:46:31 pm
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316276/nation-sandra-flukes-mark-steyn
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on September 11, 2012, 04:48:11 pm
The discussion on when I feel life begins is really not relavent. It's my opinion and you won't agree with it so you'll automatically consider my opinion wrong. However, since I know you won't drop the issue and completely ignore the rest of my opinion until I tell you, I think life begins when the baby takes it's first breath. Until that point, I feel the fetus is a part of the mother, the mother has grown that baby inside of her using her body to feed and nourish it. Once that cord is cut, it's no longer part of the mother but an entirely different person. Again, this is just my OPINION. I'm not saying I'm correct and that everyone else is wrong, it's just how I view it.

Regardless of protection of the law, why does a woman have to give up her body to a fetus? Does she not have any protections under the law or does her body just become a vessel for this fetus? To ignore this issue is to ignore a huge part of why women don't want to be pro-life. It's my body and I feel I should be able to make decisions that affect it.

And by NO means am I a feminist. I just don't want the government to tell me what I can and can't do with my person. It's not the governments place to make that choice for me.

Also,

This is not completely true. If a parent chooses to have nothing to do with their child, they can make that choice. Yes they should pay child support and other things, but lets face it, it doesn't always happen. So no, they aren't REQUIRED to do anything. The government can tell them to, but they have the ability to do otherwise, even though it is illegal. With a pregnancy, if the government says no abortions, then that's that...OR you'll see women doing terrible things to achieve the goal they desire...but that's a whole different topic.

Just trying to give you all a women's perspective. You can't wave a woman's rights simply because she is pregnant. While she (AND her partner) can prevent pregnancy, not every pregnancy is intentional, even if precautions were taken.
Bravo  Its your Body your choice
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 11, 2012, 05:50:27 pm
It's more just stating the reality. A man will never fully understand the decision a woman has to make in those situations. Just like I don't fully understand it because I have never had a child. I'm not trying to degrade a man's perspective in any way. They should be a very important part of the decision, but the woman has the ultimate decision to make and whatever emotions that are associated with that will follow her the rest of her life.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2012, 05:52:42 pm
Who really thinks anything will change wrt a "woman's right to choose" regardless who wins?

I do.

Obama has made very clear his intent of not only allowing abortion on demand at any time during the pregnancy, but also to have the federal government, or the health insurance plan which will have to meet requirements set up by his administration, to fund it.

Those are moves which would not happen under Romney.

Romney has also promised to appoint justices who would be more inclined to revers Roe v. Wade, and that is something which would not happen under Obama.

I can easily see a difference to tens of thousands of abortions depending on which man is elected president, and quite possibly a difference of hundreds of thousands of abortion.  If the difference ended up being the difference between government funded, on-demand, abortion and a reversal of Roe v. Wade, the difference in the number of abortions over the following years would be in the millions.

To some people who consider abortion to be murder, that is somewhat significant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on September 11, 2012, 10:14:09 pm
When your going to define when human life begins, you are defining what human life is.  So if your define human life as breathing on your own, you are denying that people on ventilators are humans worth protecting.  If you define human life as being able to sustain oneself, then dementia patients, infnts, children are not worth protecting and should be nothing more than organ donors.  Your definition of human life has to be able to be extended throughout the entire life of someone.  Don't even get me started on defining death.  The fact is if you haven't thought about this, then you haven't thought about abortion what ever your sex is. 

Redbirdfan it would be interesting if you ever do have children when you see the 3D ultrasound what are you looking at, a clump of cells or a baby?  As the father of 1, soon to be 2 my answer is very clear.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 12, 2012, 12:22:36 am
I never called them a clump of cells. Having been a big part of my sister in laws pregnancy I witnessed a miracle first hand. She has epilepsy and was well within her rights to terminate her pregnancy. She and I discussed it at length and I encouraged her to not terminate because I knew that she'd be a good mom, no matter what happened with the baby. My nephew is now 5 and perfectly healthy.

Also, your entire argument of denying people the right to live is derived from a completely false sense of what I claimed. I was merely saying that's when I believe life started, it isn't a necessary requirement to continue life. By being able to sustain oneself, do any of those people require their mother and their umbilical cord to live said life? Sure they may require a caregiver or parent of sorts, but they do not require one single and particular person to live, many different people can take that role.

Don't be offended by my opinion, I'm certainly not trying to push it on you or anyone else, nor am I saying I'm right. I don't think any one person is right, it's such a personal subject and the answer is different for each and every person.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 12, 2012, 12:24:41 am
And I'm sure my opinion will change when I have a child of my own, that's how life works...everything I experience changes my outlook and opinions for the future. I can only tell you how I feel now, not how I will feel then.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 12, 2012, 12:55:52 am
A zygote is NOT a person, just a collection of cells.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 12, 2012, 01:51:07 am
Redbird conducts a logical discussion.  Oddo spouts off his ignorance.  Quite a difference.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2012, 07:36:12 am
Also, your entire argument of denying people the right to live is derived from a completely false sense of what I claimed. I was merely saying that's when I believe life started, it isn't a necessary requirement to continue life. By being able to sustain oneself, do any of those people require their mother and their umbilical cord to live said life? Sure they may require a caregiver or parent of sorts, but they do not require one single and particular person to live, many different people can take that role.

You were wrong when you predicted I was going to argue against your position on when life began... but you just seem to have changed it.

In my example of a stowaway on a plane, that person is entirely dependent on the pilot -- one singe person, not "many different people," and yet I suspect you would agree that if the pilot tossed him out of the plane without a parachute at 5,000 feet, that would be murder.

If you want to take the position that human life only begins when the first independent breath is drawn and the umbilical cord is cut, that is okay, but your later comments indicate that you really do NOT believe that.

That position would allow parents to "abort" a child after delivery if the child was not the right sex, so long as they performed the "abortion" prior to cutting the umbilical cord.  That position also is not really concerned with whether the child can live outside the womb, since nearly all children can in the last couple of months before a nine month delivery (and since I believe some children have survived at 20 weeks), but your post above mentions "being able to sustain oneself (without) their mother and their umbilical cord."

Sort of wonder whether you would also support bringing criminal charges against someone other than the mother who would deliberately injure or kill the unborn child against the mother's wishes, and if so what that charge might be -- malicious mischief for "property damage"?  Or should the parents be allowed to bring a lawsuit in the name of the unborn child for injuries another person might have caused to the child.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2012, 07:49:52 am
After the attacks yesterday in Egypt and Libya, you sort of have to wonder.... And will the mainstream media raise this issue?  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2012, 07:55:13 am
Oddo spouts off his ignorance.

At least he appears to know his limitations.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 12, 2012, 08:15:33 am
After the attacks yesterday in Egypt and Libya, you sort of have to wonder.... And will the mainstream media raise this issue?  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

To be fair, Obama has many other priorities on his plate, such as meeting with hard hitting major journalists like "Pimp the Limp" DJ Laz.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-chats-with-pimp-the-limp-dj-laz-on-911-morn/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2012, 08:32:57 am
The very same day that White House announced Obama was simply to busy to meet with Netanyahu before the election to discuss Iran, it announced Obama was appearing on Letterman, and I believe appearing on Letterman in New York, the same day Netenyahu is scheduled to be in New York to speak to the UN and had hoped to meet with Obama.

Nice to know Obama has his priorities straight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2012, 08:34:27 am
Speaking of straight....

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama-hid-gay-life-to-become-president/

.... not that there's anything wrong with that...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on September 12, 2012, 09:27:06 am
Was there a cigar involved?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on September 12, 2012, 11:02:55 am
Your definition of when life begins, defines life.  In medical ethics it makes no difference if it is a machine or a person providing the oxygen and nutrition. Do you really want to define human life by the number of people providing care?  1 person not a human, 2+ human?  If a fetus isn't a human/clump of cells then what is it.  This isn't an attack on you or your beliefs, just trying to flesh out what makes a human a human in your mind.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: RedBirdFan on September 12, 2012, 11:37:13 am
And I'm not speaking for a medical standpoint. I can't tell you when I think life ends because its different for each person and thus a completely different topic of debate. I don't believe beginning of life and end of life can be compared.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2012, 11:50:14 am
Do you really want to define human life by the number of people providing care?  1 person not a human, 2+ human?

You have to admit that it is an interesting definition.

Dependant entirely on one person, and you are not living.  Dependent on a multitude of people and machines and you are living.  Presumably if you are completely independent of others, you don't even exist.

Sort of a variation on the question of whether a falling tree makes any noise if it falls in an empty forrest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2012, 11:54:23 am
And I'm not speaking for a medical standpoint.

Well, then from what standpoint ARE you speaking?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on September 12, 2012, 11:59:16 am
You may have to speak in medical terms about a MEDICAL procedure.  You also can't make a distinction between end of life and beginning of life it is impossible. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2012, 08:50:48 pm
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 16, 2012, 12:23:37 pm
Another serious court challenge facing ObamaCare.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/new-obamacare-challenge-the-origination-clause/#.UFJ05-MMR_g.facebook

>             New Obamacare Challenge: The Origination Clause
>
>             Randy Barnett • September 13, 2012 5:35 pm
>
>             The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a motion in its pending suit against Obamacare asking the judge (1) to rule that, when it enacted the Senate health care reform bill that includes a “tax” for not purchasing health insurance, Congress violated the Origination Clause, which says that all revenue bills must originate in the House; and (2) that their clients are under no legal obligation to purchase health insurance under the ruling of the Court.
>
>             The first of these issues was never litigated before the Supreme Court and remains open; the second concerns the meaning and effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the “requirement” to purchase insurance was unconstitutional under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses (and that only the “penalty,” not the requirement, was upheld as an exercise of the tax power).
>
>             Here is their press release:
>
>                 Pacific Legal Foundation continues to be on the front lines in the constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a new complaint filed yesterday on behalf of client Matt Sissel, PLF attorneys have asked Judge Beryl Howell to rule that Congress ignored the Constitution’s Origination Clause when it enacted the Obamacare “tax.” We’ve also asked the court to declare the Individual Mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause—thereby clarifying whether Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion is binding precedent, or merely non-binding “dicta,” as some lawyers have argued.
>
>                 The Origination Clause requires “all bills for raising revenue” to “originate” in the House of Representatives. But the Obama Administration’s health care law did not originate in the House; it originated in the Senate, when Senator Harry Reid “amended” a bill the House had passed by striking out all of its text and replacing it with the Senate-written bill that eventually became Obamacare. At that time, Congress claimed that the bill wasnot a tax—and indeed, the Obama Administration continues to insist that it is not a tax—but this summer the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision ruling that while Congress had no power to force people to buy health insurance, it did have power to tax them for not buying insurance. The justices did not address the question of whether such a “tax” was constitutional under the Origination Clause, because none of the lawyers raised that issue—until now.
>
>                 The founding fathers wrote the Origination Clause because they were deeply suspicious of government’s power to tax. Knowing how liable it was to be abused, they wanted that power kept as close to the voters as possible. The Senate—which at the time was not even elected by the people at all—could not be trusted with a power that could, in the words of one of the Constitution’s detractors, “light upon the head of every person in the United States,” shouting “Give! Give!” Conscious of such concerns, the founders provided that all bills for raising revenue would have to originate in the House most responsive to the voters.
>
>                 Congress ignored this rule when it passed what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As we explain further in this litigation backgrounder, the Senate used a “shell bill” procedure instead, scooping out the entire contents of a bill the House had passed, and replacing it with language the Senate had concocted. (Of course, they had to do this, since Congress was struggling to get the bill passed before anyone had time to read it.)
>
>                 The Supreme Court has said thatcourts can consider questions about the Origination Clause. But so far it has never addressed a situation like this; all previous Origination Clause cases involved legitimate amendments to tax bills the House had passed. Once again, Obamacare is unprecedented—no prior case has involved such an egregious violation of constitutional requirements.
>
>                 In addition to the Origination Clause argument, our new complaint asks the court to explain what parts of Chief Justice John Roberts’ June 28 opinionare binding precedent and which are not. Legal scholars—and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a recent opinion—have expressed confusion about what parts of the decision qualify as law, and what parts are simply Chief Justice Roberts’ personal views, or what lawyers call “obiter dictum.” We’ve asked the judge to declare that Roberts’ ruling about the Individual Mandate—that it exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause—is indeed the law of the land, since it was joined by four other justices.
>
>                 Since June, the Obama Administration has been spinning the Supreme Court’s decision as if it had won the case and upheld the Individual Mandate. In fact, that did not happen. Five justices declared the Individual Mandate—the provision forcing Americans to buy insurance whether they want to or not—to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts went on to declare that Congress could impose a tax penalty on people who failed to buy insurance—but only because that penalty was relatively modest. If it became severe enough to be essentially the same as a Mandate, Roberts explained, he would have to findthat unconstitutional as well. And, of course, such a tax would have to satisfy other constitutional requirements, including the Origination Clause, to be valid.
>
>                 Contrary to what the Obama Administration and its allies have claimed, the government did notwin the Obamacare case. Nor is the battle over. PLF’s defense of the Constitution has only just begun.
>
>                 You can read our new complaint here, and learn more about the case at our case page and through this litigation backgrounder.
>
>             I recommend the backgrounder.  Here is most of what it says about the Origination Clause (footnotes omitted):
>
>                 But what about the constitutionality of the Act’s “tax”? The Constitution provides that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills.” Yet the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—including its monetary penalties for failing to purchase health insurance—did not originate in the House of
>                 Representatives.
>
>                 The founding fathers viewed the Origination Clause as a crucial protection for American freedom. They thought it important that the power to tax be kept as close as possible to the people’s representatives—members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.  This would give the voting public the strongest possible control over the taxing power, which the founders rightly saw as prone to dangerous abuse.
>
>                 But as it was drafting the Act in 2010, Congress used a procedural maneuver called a “shell bill,” in which the Senate took a bill that had already been passed by the House, and amended it to strike out all of its language and replace it entirely with new language. The bill—H.B. 3590—began as the “Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009,” introduced in September, 2009.48 That bill was passed by the House and sent to the Senate in October, 2009. But on November 19, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid submitted an “amendment” which struck out everything in the bill and replaced it with what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That Act contains 17 separate revenue provisions, including a dozen new taxes estimated to increase federal revenue by $486 billion by 2019.
>
>                 Federal courts have reviewed cases involving Origination Clause challenges, but none has ever involved as extreme an example of the strike-and-replace procedure used in passing the Act. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a bill in which the Senate had added a tax increase through an amendment to a House bill that had originally eliminated an inheritance tax. And in Rainey v. United States, the Court allowed the Senate to add a tax to a tariff bill that had originated in the House. But in United States v. Munoz-Flores, a 1990 case, the Court indicated that it would not allow Congress simply to ignore the Origination Clause.  “Although the House certainly can refuse to pass a bill because it violates the Origination Clause, that ability does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to consider constitutional challenges to congressional enactments.”
>
>             If any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act.  The Supreme Court has never approved the “strike-and-replace” procedure the Congress employed here.  This challenge might be a good opportunity to discover whether the Origination Clause is part of the “Lost Constitution,” or whether it is still a part of the written Constitution that Congress must obey and the Courts will enforce. It seems an easy enough rule to follow and pass judgment upon.  So we will see.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 16, 2012, 10:43:40 pm
jessie

Did you just love it when rupert murdoch goes on the rag? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 16, 2012, 11:16:35 pm
Is there someone that can translate Oddo's latest mumbling?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cubette Tx on September 17, 2012, 07:20:10 am
Why?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 17, 2012, 08:01:58 am
Some people are simply possessed with perverse curiousity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 17, 2012, 11:53:19 am
I keep thinking that there is some degree of logic behind his posts.  And I will continue to believe that no matter how often I am proven wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 18, 2012, 12:58:04 pm
Quote
Some people are simply possessed with perverse curiousity.

On that note, are you still guaranteeing that Obama will lose the election?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 18, 2012, 02:36:19 pm
Obama's bounce is gone. Gallup today has him down to a 1 pt advantage among registerd voters.  They switch to likely voters on Oct 1 which always adds to the Republican side.  Swing states are within a point all of which have Obama below 50% which historically is always bad news for the incumbent.  I think it is close but Mitt is slightly ahead right now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 18, 2012, 02:56:28 pm
I have recently been following Nate Silver's blog.  He has Obama's chances at about 75% currently.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

His methodology would seem to have some credibility, as he correctly predicted 49 state outcomes in the 2008 election (missing only on Indiana which went to Obama by a hair).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 18, 2012, 02:59:43 pm
Robb, what do you think about Romney's comments captured on that video that was just released?  Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal.  It more or less reflects how he actually feels.  But it doesn't help his campaign.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 18, 2012, 03:11:20 pm
Robb, what do you think about Romney's comments captured on that video that was just released?  Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal.  It more or less reflects how he actually feels.  But it doesn't help his campaign.

It takes him off message, puts him on the defensive, and diverts attention from what may or may not have happened in Libya, but in a week or two, it probably blows over.  Really it probably even helps him energize the conservative base some to actually hear him talking like that.

Also, the media probably doesn't want it promoted that 47% of the people really truly do not pay any income tax.  It takes away a lot of Obama's argument that the rich aren't paying their fair share when the federal tax burden is only on 53% of the population.  If that actually does become an issue and people became more aware of it, I think if anything it helps Romney.  It's really something that should be debated and discussed a lot more than it is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 18, 2012, 03:22:30 pm
I have recently been following Nate Silver's blog.  He has Obama's chances at about 75% currently.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)

His methodology would seem to have some credibility, as he correctly predicted 49 state outcomes in the 2008 election (missing only on Indiana which went to Obama by a hair).

I check out that blog just about every day.  Whether his models have that high of a degree of accuracy or not, I think his analysis is pretty fascinating.  If you're a political junkie, I think it's a must read.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 18, 2012, 03:29:26 pm
I seem to remember he was off a little bit in his congressional models last year.  For instance, I think he had Sharron Angle a slight favorite in Nevada and Ken Buck a slight favorite in Colorado heading into last year's election, and I think he underestimated the number of House seats the Republicans would win (although I think everyone had that underestimated).  He also had Delaware as pretty much a 100% Republican pickup until Christine O'Donnell won the nomination.  He didn't really figure O'Donnell possibly winning the primary in his calculations at all.

Still, I think he does some really interesting stuff there.  Silver's a self proclaimed liberal, but I really think he tries to be non-biased in his analysis.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 18, 2012, 03:30:18 pm
On that note, are you still guaranteeing that Obama will lose the election?

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on September 18, 2012, 04:37:28 pm
Obama is toast.

Toast is clearly a racist buzzword...shame on you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on September 18, 2012, 06:14:31 pm
JR, to the extent Nate Silver's model was less-accurate in 2010, that has much more to do with the fact that mid-term elections/congressional elections have far less robust polling than presidential race polling. He and his model didn't have flaws, the data just wasn't all that great. And but so, he certainly didn't discount the GOP pick-ups in the house in 2010 -- he mentioned a fairly decent chance that what did happen, would happen.

Some posters to Silver's site seem to think Obama has things sewn up, but of course that's not at all what the model is saying. It is saying Obama is doing slightly better than Romney in polling, particularly in battleground states, as of now. And, frankly, the electoral college path for Romney is narrow. But nothing is even close to being decided.

His site is addictive.

And, JR (et al) I really don't want to wade into this, I really don't: but among that 47% are seniors on fixed social security income and active duty servicemen and women, right? And many don't pay because of GOP policies.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-18/romney-s-47-percent-with-no-taxes-include-elderly-poor-workers

There is no way -- none -- this is a net positive for Romney.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 18, 2012, 06:39:07 pm
Heard a Democrat politician today who was attacking what Romney said, but also confessed that some of his numbers are accurate...about 47% are going to vote Democrat no matter what.  47% are going to vote Republican no matter what.  The election is always up to the 6%.

I don't know how true that is, but...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 18, 2012, 06:59:54 pm
I don't think the comment helps him not because of the substance, but because it takes him off message and puts him on the defensive but agree with JR that I don't think it will have much bearing.  I actually have a theory that the Obama campaign has been holding on to this for a time of need to distract the media.  The deterioration of the Middle East needed cover so people don't blame the President so they throw that video out at their lapdogs in the media knowing they will eat it up.  To me the deciding factor in the election will be the debates.  I think the independents would like to fire Obama but don't feel comfortable hiring Romney.  If Mitt can show in the debates that he is not the devil he has been made out to be then I think he wins.  And he'll have to do well enough to drown out the pundits who have already decided Obama has won the debates even though they haven't happened yet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 18, 2012, 07:04:15 pm
I have looked at Nate Silver's model but have a major problem with anyone claiming 75% assurance of anything in this election.  The University of Colorado also has a model they use that has been 100% accurate for 40 years and it showed Mitt winning comfortably with some 300+ electoral votes. 

A newly-released University of Colorado study predicts that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama in November.  Romney will also win the popular vote 52.9 percent to 47.1 percent, according to the study, reports the Boulder Daily Camera.  This study has been right in every election since 1980.  The study crunches economic data, unemployment numbers and per capita income in all states and then calculates a winner.  University of Colorado Political science professor Kenneth Bickers said in a statement: "Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble."  Political science professor Michael Berry, who co-authored the study, added: "For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 18, 2012, 07:07:21 pm
I also just saw this poll taken by CNBC which is hardly a right wing bastion.  http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/09/18/shock-polls-readers-of-cnbc-and-yahoo-finance-loved-romneys-47-comment/
It says 47% of people agree with Mitt's comments in the video, only 29% disagree and 29% are neutral.  We'll see I guess.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 18, 2012, 07:16:56 pm
Actually, I think the number is far more than 47%.

However, it was an incredibly stupid thing for a Republican candidate to say.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on September 18, 2012, 07:22:32 pm
I don't know why Obama is even bothering to campaign.

He could get caught in bed with a dead woman AND a live boy and he would still win easily.

Romney has no chance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 18, 2012, 07:24:18 pm
It's not like he put it in his stump speech Dave.  It was said behind closed doors in a private meeting.  If all politicians were judged on all their private comments I doubt any of them would get elected.  Basically this is a tempest in a teapot and goes away in a few days.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 18, 2012, 07:32:38 pm
Any Republican who thinks it is impossible for leaks to come out of a closed door meeting isn't paying attention.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on September 18, 2012, 07:52:33 pm
And if the Romney campaign felt this was a net positive for them (the "truth" getting out there), they would have it in their stump speech.

Anyhow, my last bit on this: David Brooks who I think is best described as a Republican, but not really a modern conservative (but I'm the wrong guy to ask how people across the aisle divide themselves) had this article in today's NYT which cites some interesting data and facts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 18, 2012, 08:04:53 pm
Brooks voted for Obama, he is as much a conservative as Pat Caddell is Democrat.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 18, 2012, 11:03:56 pm
JR, to the extent Nate Silver's model was less-accurate in 2010, that has much more to do with the fact that mid-term elections/congressional elections have far less robust polling than presidential race polling. He and his model didn't have flaws, the data just wasn't all that great. And but so, he certainly didn't discount the GOP pick-ups in the house in 2010 -- he mentioned a fairly decent chance that what did happen, would happen.

Some posters to Silver's site seem to think Obama has things sewn up, but of course that's not at all what the model is saying. It is saying Obama is doing slightly better than Romney in polling, particularly in battleground states, as of now. And, frankly, the electoral college path for Romney is narrow. But nothing is even close to being decided.

His site is addictive.

Yeah I think those are very valid points about the mid-term polling.  I didn't want to cast too much doubt at all about what Silver does, BTW.  I think he's pretty terrific, and like you said, that site is very addictive. 

Basically what I think Silver's model is saying is that historically when an incumbent has the lead Obama has on September 18 and factoring in all of the other non-polling data Silver includes in his model, historically a candidate like Obama has a 75% chance of winning.  That actually does seem kind of right.  The guy is leading in the polls, after all, and incumbent Presidents historically don't lose unless there are unusual or really bad circumstances.  After all, usually if you're leading in the polls going into election day, unless you're Thomas Dewey, you're going to win.

Historically given all of the current data, a challenger like Romney wins 1 out of 4 times.  If you really think about it, that's not all that bad.  If you're for Romney, just hopefully circumstances set themselves up in the next couple of months where 2012 is one of those 1 out of 4 times. 

Quote
And, JR (et al) I really don't want to wade into this, I really don't: but among that 47% are seniors on fixed social security income and active duty servicemen and women, right? And many don't pay because of GOP policies.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-18/romney-s-47-percent-with-no-taxes-include-elderly-poor-workers (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-18/romney-s-47-percent-with-no-taxes-include-elderly-poor-workers)

There is no way -- none -- this is a net positive for Romney.

Probably not a net positive, but I'm still guessing this is something that blows over before too long.  I imagine the 45% of people voting for Romney didn't have much of a problem with what he said, and the 47% of people voting for Obama didn't like it.  The middle probably isn't too shocked to hear Romney say something like that either and will probably wait until after the debates or closer to the election to make up their minds.  I still doubt it changes that much, especially once this news cycle passes. 

And yes I know the 47% includes the elderly and the military, but I still think it's important to realize that the tax burden in this country doesn't fall on a great many people and only 53% of people do pay income taxes.  When the Top 10% pay 69% of the taxes in this country for instance, people need to realize that when Obama is saying the wealthy isn't paying their fair share.  Even if the wealthy had a 100% tax rate, it still doesn't come close to solving the fiscal issues that we have right now. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 19, 2012, 11:29:03 am
Sure, this will blow over, but it's only a matter of time before he does something else stupid.  "Depressingly inept" sounds spot-on.  I'm a registered independent, and I'm 95% certain I don't want Romney as president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 19, 2012, 11:52:27 am
I'm feeling pretty smart about my prediction that the Republicans would once again run the dumbest campaign imaginable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 19, 2012, 01:01:50 pm
It doesn't always work out that way.  John Kerry's campaign was shockingly inept.  I'm glad that guy isn't president either, but how awful do you have to be to lose to George W Bush?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 19, 2012, 02:34:02 pm
So what is inept?  Talking to fundraisers in a private gathering about the dynamics of the electorate and who is likely to vote for you?  Or perhaps inept is leaving your consulate in Libya unprotected on the anniversary of 9/11 after getting a warning three days earlier.  Or issuing a statement disagreeing with a tweet from the US embassy in Cairo that the Administration then disavowed compared to shutting down domestic drilling on public land contributing to gas prices doubling for all Americans.  Saying you like to be able to fire people who poorly provide services to you compared to telling small business owners "You didn't build that."  Or how about taking over more than a hundred struggling/fledgling companies and turning around 80% of them compared to inheriting a struggling economy and "leading" the worst recovery in recorded history due to Dodd/Frank and Obamacare and an anti-energy/anti-business culture?  Okay so Mitt Romney is not as eloquent as Obama.  That doesn't in any way mean he is inept or dumb.  In fact this is the guy who graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Harvard Business and Law school at the same time. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on September 19, 2012, 02:43:57 pm
I'll tell you who is inept, it is the Left wing media who is looking for any reason to feed the narrative because Mitt Romney is against everything they are for.  Buy in if you will but don't be shocked at how comfortable the margin of victory will be for Mitt.  The laughable samples of the recent polling is so skewed it may as well be Obama propaganda.  Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 and they are predicting an R+3 turnout model for November.  Guess where most of the polls are, D+5 D+8 and even one that was D+13. 

I'll give you one example.  PPP polled Ohio a few days ago and came back Obama up 5.  The problem is that OH currently has more Republicans registered than Democrats by 2.  What was their sample?  D+5 and 9% more women than men whereas the electorate is actually closer to even.  So what would the poll have looked like with an accurate sample?  Probably even.  Also don't forget that incumbents below 50% in the final months before the elections simply don't win.  Why?  Because undecideds  swing at least 2-1 for the challenger.  That's true even when the incumbent wins.  So every poll that shows the race tied with 7-10% undecideds should scare the hell out of Obama and the media who roots for him. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 19, 2012, 03:27:23 pm
I'll tell you who is inept, it is the Left wing media who is looking for any reason to feed the narrative because Mitt Romney is against everything they are for.  Buy in if you will but don't be shocked at how comfortable the margin of victory will be for Mitt.  The laughable samples of the recent polling is so skewed it may as well be Obama propaganda.  Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 and they are predicting an R+3 turnout model for November.  Guess where most of the polls are, D+5 D+8 and even one that was D+13. 

I'll give you one example.  PPP polled Ohio a few days ago and came back Obama up 5.  The problem is that OH currently has more Republicans registered than Democrats by 2.  What was their sample?  D+5 and 9% more women than men whereas the electorate is actually closer to even.  So what would the poll have looked like with an accurate sample?  Probably even.  Also don't forget that incumbents below 50% in the final months before the elections simply don't win.  Why?  Because undecideds  swing at least 2-1 for the challenger.  That's true even when the incumbent wins.  So every poll that shows the race tied with 7-10% undecideds should scare the hell out of Obama and the media who roots for him.

I would add to this.... if there were anything to add.

Oh, yeah, there is....

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 19, 2012, 03:29:45 pm
Rasmussen wasn't very accurate at all in 2010.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/)

Pretty much on 538, Nate Silver has had Rasmussen as a mixed bag.  They were bad in 2000, strong in 2004 and 2006, and mediocre in 2008.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/blast-from-rasmussen-past.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on September 19, 2012, 03:38:35 pm
Obama isn't toast, although he and his supporters will be raising one late in the evening on election day.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 19, 2012, 03:49:43 pm
To have a real chance, Romney needs to carry Ohio and Florida.  Tough but possible.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 19, 2012, 05:19:37 pm
Rmney will take both OH and FL, as well as NC and VA.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 19, 2012, 06:32:25 pm
Dreaming, just dreaming your life away...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 19, 2012, 07:03:16 pm
Romney will probably take NC and Florida.  But Ohio and Virginia will be tough, and he likely can't win without both of them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on September 19, 2012, 07:46:11 pm
Romney will probably take NC and Florida.  But Ohio and Virginia will be tough, and he likely can't win without both of them.

It looks to me like Florida, Ohio, and Virginia are acting as bellweathers.  The RCP averages for Florida and Virignia are right in line with the national average, and even though Obama is 2 points over his average in Ohio, that state usually winds up being slightly Republican leaning when everything's over with.

Pretty much if Romney is leading nationally, he'll win those states.  If he isn't winning nationally, he probably won't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on September 19, 2012, 09:07:46 pm
Once again, Nate Silver has a really interesting review of polls. I guess maybe it's what he does.

Basically, when the pollster includes cellphones (1/3rd of U.S. households are cell phone only), then Obama's lead both head-to-head nationally, and in key battleground states, is stronger: "Mr. Obama’s advantage is also clearer in the swing states. The cellphone-inclusive polls give him an 80 percent chance to win Virginia, a 79 percent chance in Ohio, and a 68 percent chance to win Florida"

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/#more-34740
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 19, 2012, 09:08:31 pm
Romney won't carry Florida with his current ticket partner.  The phone calls have already started telling us that Ryan and Romney want to take away our Medicare.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 20, 2012, 07:04:32 am
If Romney fails to carry Florida, he is almost certainly sunk.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 21, 2012, 11:29:48 am
Thanks for posting the FiveThirtyEight link.  That's cool stuff.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2012, 12:10:33 pm
If Romney fails to carry Florida, he is almost certainly sunk.

And if Obama continues suffering erosion of the Jewish vote, Obama is almost certainly sunk in FL.

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 21, 2012, 12:19:20 pm
Our President is losing the Jewish vote? Since when?

I think we all need to see the dickmorris blogpost that your sourcing, before you put Florida in 1% willard column.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2012, 02:29:07 pm
otto, reading comprehension is a skill which can be mastered.  I understand your limitations, but I am not asking you to do more than you are capable of.

Just slow down, read the words, and think about what each one means, both individually, and when taken together and read in the given order.

You can do it if you try.

Go on.

Try again.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 21, 2012, 03:06:56 pm
Quote
Obama is toast

Try again disbarred lawyer.

Slow enough?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2012, 04:23:48 pm
Sticks and stones, otto....

Now, be a good boy, stop looking out the window and kicking your neighbor's desk, and try to re-read that passage so you understand it.

I'm sure you can do it if you try.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 21, 2012, 04:48:56 pm
Jes is ever the optimist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 21, 2012, 09:45:51 pm
He's an eye doctor?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on September 21, 2012, 10:30:29 pm
Eye, eye.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on September 22, 2012, 09:45:24 am
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092112-626731-creepy-obama-cult-of-personality.htm

Obama's Creepy Cult of Personality
Editorial, Investors Business Daily

Last week, the Obama campaign started selling a refashioned American flag with its logo replacing the stars, and then urged Americans to pledge allegiance to Barack. Did we just wake up in Mao's China?

The flag print, designed especially for the campaign by a pair of obviously incredibly hip artists, tries to improve the musty look of Old Glory by taking out a few stripes and swapping the star field for the Obama "O" logo. The campaign is selling the limited edition prints for just $35.

Amazingly, this isn't the first time the American flag has been desecrated to better suit Obama sycophants.

Earlier this year, a local Democratic Party headquarters in Florida decided to fly a flag that replaced the stars with a photo of our Dear Leader.

Bad as these flags are, the Obama campaign's "pledge" drive is even more disturbing.

The "For All" effort encourages celebrities, politicians and regular folk to submit photos of themselves with their hands — on which messages are scrawled — held over their heart, pledging to vote for Obama so he can provide (fill in the blank) "For All!"

Equal pay ... For All!

Women's rights ... For All!

Food ... For All!

A Future ... For All!

The only thing missing from these frightful pictures is the new and improved Obama flag.

It's one thing for Obama to encourage all this — which he obviously does. After all, this is a guy who promised he would heal the planet and keep the oceans from rising, and made himself the subject of his only two books.

He's the guy who ran around during his first campaign with a fake presidential seal that replaced the stars and stripes on the eagle's shield with, naturally, the Obama logo. And he's the guy who gave his first acceptance speech in front of a bunch of faux Greek columns.

He's the guy who, when Neil Armstrong died, saw fit to commemorate that event by tweeting a picture of himself, and the guy who'd rather talk with David Letterman and party with Jay-Z than work with Benjamin Netanyahu to stop Iran from going nuclear.

But the question is, why are so many Americans so willing to voluntarily buy into Obama's personality cult?

Remember that will.i.am video from Obama's first campaign?

Or the equally creepy video of elementary school students signing Obama's praises:

"Mmm, mmm, mmm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand

To make this country strong again

Mmm, mmm, mmm!

Barack Hussein Obama."

Or how about the endless news photos of Obama with his head centered in the middle of a circle in the background, giving him the appearance of being surrounded by a halo.

Anyone want to guess how many times a press photographer decided to snap a picture of Reagan like that?

In totalitarian countries, leaders can force their greatness on unwilling subjects because they own the press, they own the entertainment industry and they own all the schools.

But here in the U.S., we don't worship our presidents. We hire them to do a job for us. And we only pledge allegiance to the flag — the one with 50 stars and 13 stripes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on September 22, 2012, 08:52:18 pm
Great stuff Coach! Is that from The Onion or Colbert or Jon Stewart on Comedy Central? I do love satire poking fun at the extreme and ridiculous stuff out there!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 24, 2012, 04:30:54 pm
Shasson

That was a serious editorial by the unfunny right. 

But I still enjoyed the sarcasm.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 01, 2012, 08:38:22 am
Nate Silver with an interesting analogy today.  Statistically, an NFL team that is down 7 points with 10 minutes to play has a 16% chance of winning.  That's about the same kind of situation Romney is in right now.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/sept-30-romney-down-a-touchdown/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 01, 2012, 08:43:22 am
So, putting this into Jeff Horn math, Romney has the same chance as a narc exposed at a biker rally, if he's six feet closer to the fastest bike upon being exposed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 01, 2012, 10:39:38 am
Nate Silver with an interesting analogy today.  Statistically, an NFL team that is down 7 points with 10 minutes to play has a 16% chance of winning.  That's about the same kind of situation Romney is in right now.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/sept-30-romney-down-a-touchdown/

Except that Romney is not actually behind, unless you accept polling models which are at odds with reality regarding the composition of the polling samples.

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 01, 2012, 11:13:42 am
I am a long time Mitt supporter but i think he is down right now.  Probably losing by 3 points or so.  Not a blowout and I think he has a better chance than 16% to win.  I would put his chance around 45% at this time.  If the debates go well then I think he wins.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 01, 2012, 11:31:41 am
RealClearPolitics now has Ohio leaning for Obama.  If Obama takes Ohio, Romney will probably need to win Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada.  Possible, but tough.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 01, 2012, 11:48:07 am
RealClearPolitics merely accepts the published results of various polls without even beginning to look at flawed polling techniques or sample bias.  In other words it adds no weight to the argument.

What we are seeing from the polls and what we are hearing from the news media right now is remarkably similar to what we got in 1980, right before Jimmy Carter won re-election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 01, 2012, 11:49:36 am
If you say so, who am I to argue?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on October 01, 2012, 12:26:11 pm
Some polls now show Romney as no longer a sure bet to win Arizona.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on October 01, 2012, 12:35:43 pm
Romney is going to get stomped.  The only thing in doubt is whether or not he'll have a better showing than John McCain did four years ago.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 01, 2012, 12:35:49 pm
It would be interesting to get ISF's take on the state of the race in Iowa.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 01, 2012, 01:45:41 pm
It might be interesting to see what happens in the debates.  In spite of Romney being considered a good debater, I think Obama will come off more self-assured and widen the gap.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 01, 2012, 01:46:57 pm
If you say so, who am I to argue?

Play, are you old enough to remember 1980, and how Carter swept to re-election?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 01, 2012, 01:48:57 pm
Except that Romney is not actually behind, unless you accept polling models which are at odds with reality regarding the composition of the polling samples.

Obama is toast.

Want to go double or nothing on that steak dinner I owe you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 01, 2012, 01:52:49 pm
Dinner?

Singular?

I thought you had already lost one double or nothing bet.... or is that still pending?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on October 01, 2012, 03:48:21 pm
Obama is not Carter, and Romney is not Reagan.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 01, 2012, 04:00:13 pm
There was no other double or nothing bet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 01, 2012, 04:39:56 pm
I thought we did a double or nothing about how bad this season was going to be, with me betting it was going to be a true crapper record because the Theocracy was writing off the season, and you insisted otherwise.... but I will readily acknowledge my memory is terrible.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on October 01, 2012, 05:54:44 pm
Quadruple or nothing, Dave!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 01, 2012, 07:35:58 pm
I thought we did a double or nothing about how bad this season was going to be, with me betting it was going to be a true crapper record because the Theocracy was writing off the season, and you insisted otherwise.... but I will readily acknowledge my memory is terrible.

I don't think so.  There was never a time when I thought the Cubs would be less than terrible this year.  But if you remember it, I will go along with it.

2 steak dinners that Obama will win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 01, 2012, 07:43:06 pm
It's a bet.

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 01, 2012, 07:55:37 pm
There are very few bets that I would love to lose, but that is certainly one of them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 01, 2012, 09:21:06 pm
Since the first debate is going to include the health care issue, whether Romney mentions the following would be a good indication of whether he intends to take the gloves off:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html

This is a former member of the Obama administration calling for.... yup, Death Panels. And he is not joking.

The op-ed has been out for a couple of weeks now, but if Romney makes solid reference to it during the debate, when there is a large audience out there and he would have a chance to discuss it directed with voters without the news media filter which muffles anything said in campaign speeches, he could hurt Obama bad with this.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on October 02, 2012, 07:32:17 am
I'm not convinced that most voters would even understand what that means much less change their vote based on it. Most won't even be watching the debates unless they somehow inadvertently were televised on comedy central or E entertainment. I would also bet that neither Otto nor Phil will even read that opinion piece much less comment on it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2012, 09:15:01 am
Keys, what they WOULD understand is that a former member of the Omaba administration is not only acknowledging the merit of the "death panel"claims, but that he is saying we need to speed up the process of putting them in place.

THAT is something most voters would understand, and it would seriously hurt Obama, particularly in states like FL with large elderly populations.

Even if most voters are not watching (and I am not arguing that point), if Romney pushes that issue hard, it will get prominent play well beyond the debate itself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 02, 2012, 09:34:25 am
Nevada is looking like a tough win for Romney.  The latest WeAskAmerica poll has him down 11 points:

http://weaskamerica.com/2012/10/02/horse-races/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on October 02, 2012, 11:19:48 am
I know most of you are Republicans, or at least tend to prefer Republicans to Democrats, but I'm curious as to whether you are actually enthusiastic about Romney, or more just pulling for the non-Obama candidate.  I'm admittedly on the other side of the fence (and would probably vote for a Democrat regardless, even if he was as generally unappealing as Romney comes across to me).  Just wondering if most of you are actually pro-Romney, or more just pro-Republican presidential candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on October 02, 2012, 11:32:35 am
I am pro-smaller government, pro-lower taxes, pro-less regulation, and pro-life...Romney was not my first choice and is far from my perfect candidate based on these issues but he is much closer to my beliefs than is Obama or any democrat alternative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2012, 12:34:54 pm
I won't even be voting for Romney.  I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2012, 12:39:00 pm
Nevada is looking like a tough win for Romney.  The latest WeAskAmerica poll has him down 11 points:

http://weaskamerica.com/2012/10/02/horse-races/


Any poll which fails to disclose the nuts and bolts of the poll, the makeup of the polling sample, how it was drawn, the methodology used, etc., is worthless.

That description would seem to fit this poll.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 02, 2012, 01:25:45 pm
Akin with a good chance to win in Missouri:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mo/missouri_senate_akin_vs_mccaskill-2079.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 02, 2012, 01:41:55 pm
Di - Romney was certainly not my first choice.  In fact he was close to my last choice.  But then, so were Dole and McCain.

But as Keys said above, the worst of the Republican group is greatly better than any of the Democratic group, in my opinion.

The biggest thing I have against Romney is that while Governor of Mass. he helped to pass a medical insurance act that was largely the basis for Obamacare.  He claims that he wasn't really for it, but if he could tolerate it in Mass. how will he respond to other intrusions into personal freedom when the liberal Congress passes them?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on October 02, 2012, 01:56:42 pm
By the way DaveP...my house sold. Closed 2 weeks ago.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on October 02, 2012, 02:01:57 pm
Thanks for the responses, all.  Even though I'm on the opposite side of the aisle, so to speak (I generally find "the worst of the Democratic group greatly better than any of the Republican options"), I appreciate the insight. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2012, 02:11:38 pm
Akin with a good chance to win in Missouri:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mo/missouri_senate_akin_vs_mccaskill-2079.html


That just underscores how weak McCaskill was.  Any remotely competent R candidate in MO would be leading by 15 points right now.  One of the larger reasons Akin won the primary was because the McCaskill folks did their best to help him win and to encourage D voters to crossover and vote for him in the primary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on October 02, 2012, 02:57:52 pm
Thanks for the responses, all.  Even though I'm on the opposite side of the aisle, so to speak (I generally find "the worst of the Democratic group greatly better than any of the Republican options"), I appreciate the insight. 


Di

When it came to politics, I disagreed with Oldfan a lot more than I agreed with him.  Yet, I carefully read each of his posts as he used logic and facts to present his side.  As a result, I often learned something.

Inflamed rhetoric, hyperbole, insults, and one-sided presentations of the facts are often counter-productive no matter what side you are on.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 02, 2012, 03:58:23 pm

Inflamed rhetoric, hyperbole, insults, and one-sided presentations of the facts are often counter-productive no matter what side you are on.
[/quote]

Go to hell.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 02, 2012, 05:32:10 pm
By the way DaveP...my house sold. Closed 2 weeks ago.


Great.  Are you off the hook for it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 02, 2012, 05:33:29 pm
One of the larger reasons Akin won the primary was because the McCaskill folks did their best to help him win and to encourage D voters to crossover and vote for him in the primary.

They did the  same thing for Reagan in the 1980 primaries.  Sometimes it comes back to bite.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 02, 2012, 05:34:51 pm
Inflamed rhetoric, hyperbole, insults, and one-sided presentations of the facts are often counter-productive no matter what side you are on.


Go to hell.

Curt is trying to drum up company again.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 02, 2012, 05:38:46 pm
They did the  same thing for Reagan in the 1980 primaries.  Sometimes it comes back to bite.
My recollection is that a lot of those Reagan Democrats crossed over in the general election too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 02, 2012, 08:19:18 pm
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obama-romney-tied-among-likely-voters-20121002
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 03, 2012, 11:31:24 pm
Sounds like the consensus is that Romney cleaned Obama's clock tonight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 04, 2012, 12:08:38 am
You know it's a blowout when even Ed Schultz and the whole MSNBC crowd is saying Mitt won.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 04, 2012, 06:46:47 am
My recollection is that sitting Presidents always do more poorly in these debates because they have to run on their records, not vague promises, and they may be unable to respond to some questions without revealing plans they don't want revealed, state secrets, or throwing someone under the bus.   Not making excuses for Obama, just saying "Change, change, change" doesn't work anymore.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 04, 2012, 06:54:57 am
You know it's a blowout when even Ed Schultz and the whole MSNBC crowd is saying Mitt won.

They were crying about it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 04, 2012, 07:00:24 am
My recollection is that sitting Presidents always do more poorly in these debates because they have to run on their records, not vague promises, and they may be unable to respond to some questions without revealing plans they don't want revealed, state secrets, or throwing someone under the bus.   Not making excuses for Obama, just saying "Change, change, change" doesn't work anymore.

This debate was about the economy.  No "state secrets" involved, and Obama has already thrown his own grandmother under the bus, so he has no problem with that, and the discussion was much, much more about what each WANTS to do in the next four years, than focusing on Obama's record.

The reason some incumbents struggle in these debates (though Reagan did just fine against Mondale and Bush II did fine against Kerry and Clinton did fine against Dole -- there have only been two other election years when incumbents have debated, that being 1976 and 1982), is because they are generally surrounded by sycophants in the White House who kiss their a$$es when they speak and whatever skills they had in dealing with such confrontation tens to atrophy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 04, 2012, 08:16:59 am
The line that **** me up the most was at the end of the segment on jobs and economy when Obama said, "Jim, you may want to move on to another topic."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on October 05, 2012, 09:47:13 am
Yeah, I laughed pretty hard at that one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 05, 2012, 10:29:42 am
I appreciated the fact that almost all networks acknowledged that Romney had done very well and Obama very poorly in the first debate, but now many of the more liberal media are spending oodles of time making excuses for the President and are vicariously debating Romney in abstentia.  If the next debate is a complete turnaround, I'm sure FOX will make excuses for Mitt, though, too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 05, 2012, 10:50:29 am
Two new polls in Ohio have the race as about even, and that has caused RealClearPolitics to move Ohio back into the "tossup" category.  If Romney is able to carry Ohio, he is likely to win the election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FITS on October 05, 2012, 11:40:23 am
Nobody's excuse is more ridiculous than Al Gore blaming the altitude in Denver.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on October 05, 2012, 12:15:03 pm
Great.  Are you off the hook for it?

Yep...what a relief. It dropped in value almost 70%. Dodged the tax issue too by doing it before the tax relief law expires January 1st. I did have to kick in some cash but not nearly what it would have cost to keep it and wait for the value to return. I would have had to live to be 100 just to break even.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 05, 2012, 12:25:56 pm
Two new polls in Ohio have the race as about even, and that has caused RealClearPolitics to move Ohio back into the "tossup" category.  If Romney is able to carry Ohio, he is likely to win the election.

One of them is Rasmussen and I think WeAskAmerica is supposed to be fairly Republican leaning too, so it's not too surprising Romney's doing a little better in those polls than he's done lately.

Still, for me one of the great mysteries of this election is why Obama has been outperforming his national numbers in Ohio.  Ohio historically has been either in line with national numbers or slightly Republican leaning, and yet Obama's polling average in Ohio has been consistently a couple of points better than he's done nationally. 

You hear all the reasons why other battleground states are supposed to be becoming more favorable to Democrats like Virginia (growing D.C. suburbs), Florida (growing Hispanic population), and North Carolina (growing tech industry).

None of that applies to Ohio, though.  Makes absolutely no sense why Obama is +1 or +2 there when historically it's either been neutral or Republican +1.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 05, 2012, 12:30:22 pm
I think the biggest thing Romney has going for him is disillusionment with Obama by many of his young supporters.  The energy in that group is not there this time.  They still support him...to a degree...but not fanatically.  I get the opportunity to talk to a lot of people and even Democrats or past Obama supporters you get the sense that they won't vote against him, but they are not bothering to vote this time.

If Romney wins, I'm betting the after election surveys demonstrate that a lot of people who said they were pro-Obama didn't go vote.  They don't want to vote against him, but they are apathetic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 11, 2012, 08:42:11 pm
Is Joe Biden winning this debate or coming off as rude and obnoxious as I think he's looking?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 11, 2012, 08:43:37 pm
Are those two things mutually exclusive?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2012, 08:56:40 pm
JR, I was going to ask the 2nd half of that question.... without the first half.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 11, 2012, 09:00:55 pm
Yeah I wouldn't have asked the first part if I didn't see Mona Charen blog that she thought Biden was coming off well.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 11, 2012, 09:14:55 pm
Yea, that's Mona Charen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 11, 2012, 09:18:49 pm
Point taken.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on October 12, 2012, 03:07:16 pm
Biden by 35 points.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 12, 2012, 03:17:40 pm
LMAO
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 17, 2012, 10:14:09 am
Listening to the debate and watching it is a world apart.  I wish they would do one of those voice analyses as to emotion and such.  I was on the road last night so I listened to bits and pieces of the debate on the radio.  Obama sounded horrible.  His voice hit a higher pitch which sounded hounded and desperate, like the election was slipping away from him.  It seemed not only Romney but the viewers sending in questions were constantly reminding him of broken pledges and the lack of change, and he was put on the defensive.  Today, watching clips on TV, he appears more confident and assured.

I'd like to hear one of the voice analyzers comment on it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 17, 2012, 10:23:56 am
I think the turning point in the debate was when Obama finally dragged Romney into a catfight over their China investments.  Romney should have just left that well enough alone and continued the attack on Obama's record and pushing his economic plan.  Nobody really gives a dam n one way or the other about what investments they have in China, and that exchange just made both of them look petty.

That was the moment I thought Obama finally succeeded in getting under Romney's skin and threw him off of his game, and I think it showed in the rest of the debate.  Romney had a chance to put Obama away on Libya not too long after that, and he didn't take advantage of it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Cactus on October 17, 2012, 10:24:06 am
Listening to the debate and watching it is a world apart.  I wish they would do one of those voice analyses as to emotion and such.  I was on the road last night so I listened to bits and pieces of the debate on the radio.  Obama sounded horrible.  His voice hit a higher pitch which sounded hounded and desperate, like the election was slipping away from him.  It seemed not only Romney but the viewers sending in questions were constantly reminding him of broken pledges and the lack of change, and he was put on the defensive.  Today, watching clips on TV, he appears more confident and assured.

I'd like to hear one of the voice analyzers comment on it.

1.  Both candidates cherry-picked numbers that made their positions look good and the other guy's look bad.
2.  Supporters of both of them thought their side won.
3.  Not much would be gained by further discussion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 17, 2012, 10:57:24 am
Listening to the debate and watching it is a world apart.  I wish they would do one of those voice analyses as to emotion and such.  I was on the road last night so I listened to bits and pieces of the debate on the radio.  Obama sounded horrible.  His voice hit a higher pitch which sounded hounded and desperate, like the election was slipping away from him.  It seemed not only Romney but the viewers sending in questions were constantly reminding him of broken pledges and the lack of change, and he was put on the defensive.  Today, watching clips on TV, he appears more confident and assured.

I'd like to hear one of the voice analyzers comment on it.

In the 1960 debate, those that listened on the radio felt the Nixon was the clear winner.  Those that saw it on television thought that Kennedy was the clear winner.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on October 17, 2012, 11:14:44 am
JR, it's kind of hard to put Obama away on Libya when the moderator is incorrectly fact checking you.

It was nice of Candy to walk back that statement after the fact (and after the damage was done), but she shouldn't have interrupted the first place. Then again, she was in the business of interrupting and cutting off Romney all night long, despite the fact that Obama received more time.

So does Brit Hume moderate the last debate?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on October 17, 2012, 11:56:32 am
Jake Tapper should be the only person allowed to moderate the debate.  I'm sure he agrees more with the Democrats, but he is one of the few reporters that is tough on both sides.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 17, 2012, 12:01:52 pm
Quote
JR, it's kind of hard to put Obama away on Libya when the moderator is incorrectly fact checking you.

Yeah, that certainly didn't help, but I still think he bungled a golden opportunity.  I'm not sure even before Crowley intervened that he was making that strong of a case that Obama's version of his response wasn't true.  Actually I think Romney may have doubted he had the facts straight himself after Crowley "corrected" him, and that's why he backed off the attack.  After all, you're supposed to think a journalist would have the facts straight, right? 

Quite honestly, I think if Romney had nailed Obama on his Libya response, he probably would have won this debate in the same kind of rout that he did in the first one.  Obama had really stepped in it when he suggested he identified it as a terrorist attack from the beginning, and if Romney had made a stronger case and had a stronger grasp of how Obama responded to it than he did instead of deferring to Crowley, he might very well have been on his way to winning the election right now. 

Still, he'll probably have a good chance to call him out in the next debate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 17, 2012, 12:41:30 pm
Something interesting I just noticed this morning on fivethirtyeight.

Nate Silver has Obama winning the electoral college 287-251.  However if you flip Ohio to Romney, it comes out to a 269-269 tie.

It's looking like an electoral college tie is turning into a real possibility.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 17, 2012, 01:01:15 pm
After all, you're supposed to think a journalist would have the facts straight, right? 

Purple, dude, purple.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on October 17, 2012, 01:10:28 pm
Electoral college tie would be beyond funny.  The House picks the President, the Senate the VP.  Hello Romney-Biden.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 17, 2012, 01:14:04 pm
How about Romney-Obama?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 17, 2012, 01:34:12 pm
Folks often forget that is exactly what we had the first few elections.  Jefferson was VP for Adams.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 17, 2012, 01:38:15 pm
Electoral college tie would be beyond funny.  The House picks the President, the Senate the VP.  Hello Romney-Biden.

I'm going to have to make an admission.  I didn't realize the Senate picks the VP until I saw this post.  I just figured the House voted for the VP too.

And I thought I knew my civics pretty well.  Glad I never got asked that on one of those "man on the street" segments or something like that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 17, 2012, 01:43:17 pm
How about Romney-Obama?

OK now that I've learned the Senate gets to pick the VP in an electoral college tie, this wouldn't be a possibility would it?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, "The Senate is limited to choosing from only the top two candidates to have received electoral votes (one fewer than the number to which the House is limited)." 

So the Senate would be forced to choose between Ryan and Biden for VP because they received the most electoral votes for Vice President.  Harry Reid couldn't round everyone together and make Obama the Vice President.

Or maybe my high school civics education is failing me even more than I thought.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on October 17, 2012, 01:56:49 pm
Jake Tapper should be the only person allowed to moderate the debate.  I'm sure he agrees more with the Democrats, but he is one of the few reporters that is tough on both sides.

Tapper is one of the best mainstream journalists, no doubt about it. It be thrilled to see him moderate a debate.

That said, I was always under the impression that he was a conservative.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on October 17, 2012, 01:58:44 pm
JR, fascinating observation on the potential for an electoral college tie.

I could see Romney and Biden actually making a pretty effective ticket. Both strike me as pretty pragmatic guys. I think they'd figure out how to make it work.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 17, 2012, 03:17:23 pm
I'm going to have to make an admission.  I didn't realize the Senate picks the VP until I saw this post.  I just figured the House voted for the VP too.

And I thought I knew my civics pretty well.  Glad I never got asked that on one of those "man on the street" segments or something like that.

I don't think they have any "snot nosed brat on the street" segments.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on October 17, 2012, 03:32:32 pm
OK now that I've learned the Senate gets to pick the VP in an electoral college tie, this wouldn't be a possibility would it?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, "The Senate is limited to choosing from only the top two candidates to have received electoral votes (one fewer than the number to which the House is limited)." 

So the Senate would be forced to choose between Ryan and Biden for VP because they received the most electoral votes for Vice President.  Harry Reid couldn't round everyone together and make Obama the Vice President.

Or maybe my high school civics education is failing me even more than I thought.

Yes, the Senate would have to choose between Biden and Ryan.  A majority of all senators (51) would be able to elect either one of them.

Of more interest is the election for President in case of a tie.

If I understand correctly (and I may not), the House then elects the president, but unlike the Senate, each STATE receives only one vote.  So Nevada and North Dakota get as many votes as New York and California.  In the current congress, the Republicans hold both a majority of seats and a majority of states.  But it would be easy to come up with a configuration where the Democrats held a majority of the members, while the Republicans held a majority of the states.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 17, 2012, 03:43:52 pm
Yes, the Senate would have to choose between Biden and Ryan.  A majority of all senators (51) would be able to elect either one of them.

Of more interest is the election for President in case of a tie.

If I understand correctly (and I may not), the House then elects the president, but unlike the Senate, each STATE receives only one vote.  So Nevada and North Dakota get as many votes as New York and California.  In the current congress, the Republicans hold both a majority of seats and a majority of states.  But it would be easy to come up with a configuration where the Democrats held a majority of the members, while the Republicans held a majority of the states.

Yeah I think that is right.  The other interesting thing is that it will be the newly elected House and Senate who votes on the President and Vice President, not the current one.

By the way, I don't know why we aren't hearing more about how House elections are going.  Nate Silver did projections on the House last year, but he isn't doing it this year.  I'm guessing the composition of the House really isn't expected to change much.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on October 17, 2012, 04:41:17 pm
Tapper worked for a democratic congresswoman, started at Slate, he used to substitute on CNN's crossfire for Bill Press.  I think Tapper just does a good job, and whoever is in power is going to get tough questions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 18, 2012, 12:28:03 pm
Gallup Tracking showing Romney with a 7 point lead nationally:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on October 18, 2012, 09:49:18 pm
So...in the event of a tie in the College...and then a subsequent tie in the Senate, Biden could cast the deciding vote to elect himself. That would be fun.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on October 19, 2012, 10:11:19 am
FDISK!

Even though they're gonna be awful again, we should still do a Coors (or a Wrigley?) weekend next year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on October 19, 2012, 08:53:31 pm
Yes!  I'm up for either...or both.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on October 22, 2012, 11:55:16 am
Good!  But perhaps let's save "both" for when they aren't awful anymore.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 22, 2012, 10:46:24 pm
I get the feeling Romney preserved a 1 or 2 point loss tonight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 23, 2012, 08:29:10 am
Then you'll be pleasantly surprised on election night JR.  I have a relative who works in the Romney campaign and trust me, this debate performance tonight was safe for a reason.  Mitt is ahead and did nothing to jeopardize that tonight.  The untold story not being told in OH right now is how far Mitt has closed the gap on early voting.  Republicans are doing better in every single county in the state on early voting over 2008.  McCain actually won more votes on election night but had already lost due to the early voting.  Unless Obama can get his early voting numbers to spike in the next two weeks he will lose OH.  If he loses there he loses, period.  Colorado has swung toward Mitt, VA and FL as well.  Election night will be fun and either side could still win but there is also a very good chance this could be a blowout.  WI, MI, IA, PA and even MN are within 3 to 4 points in the latest polls.  If VA and FL get called early it could be a Reagan/Carter type landslide.   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 23, 2012, 08:41:52 am
I thought Obama did very well asserting himself last night, but I also think that a sitting President who knows what's going on and has the reins of power shouldn't go toe to toe with a challenger and come out with a draw.  That actually makes him look weak and I think the poll numbers of those who watched last night's debate reflect that. 

I guess I'm totally jaded.  I don't think anything will "change" that much under Romney any more than it did under Obama.  I don't consider Obamacare as "change."  We were heading toward some form of socialized medicine regardless.  Perhaps some of the extremes in the bill, but most of the change we've seen is just Chicago-style politics.  To really institute change will require stepping on the toes of too many bureaucrats, lifetime civil servants, fighting entitlements, and stopping some of the rider nonsense on every bill.

I'd vote Libertarian but I lost my tinfoil hat.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on October 23, 2012, 08:49:46 am
Then you'll be pleasantly surprised on election night JR.  I have a relative who works in the Romney campaign and trust me, this debate performance tonight was safe for a reason.  Mitt is ahead and did nothing to jeopardize that tonight.  The untold story not being told in OH right now is how far Mitt has closed the gap on early voting.  Republicans are doing better in every single county in the state on early voting over 2008.  McCain actually won more votes on election night but had already lost due to the early voting.  Unless Obama can get his early voting numbers to spike in the next two weeks he will lose OH.  If he loses there he loses, period.  Colorado has swung toward Mitt, VA and FL as well.  Election night will be fun and either side could still win but there is also a very good chance this could be a blowout.  WI, MI, IA, PA and even MN are within 3 to 4 points in the latest polls.  If VA and FL get called early it could be a Reagan/Carter type landslide.   

This sounds a little like some Santorum rationalizations we heard around here in the last days of his candidacy.  It's going to be closer than it looked a month ago, but Romney is still a real long shot.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2012, 09:29:20 am
This sounds a little like some Santorum rationalizations we heard around here in the last days of his candidacy.  It's going to be closer than it looked a month ago, but Romney is still a real long shot.

Aren't you in San Fransisco or some other liberal outpost which might have effected your perception of public opinion?

Obama is toast.

Then you'll be pleasantly surprised on election night JR.  I have a relative who works in the Romney campaign and trust me, this debate performance tonight was safe for a reason.  Mitt is ahead and did nothing to jeopardize that tonight.  The untold story not being told in OH right now is how far Mitt has closed the gap on early voting.  Republicans are doing better in every single county in the state on early voting over 2008. McCain actually won more votes on election night but had already lost due to the early voting.  Unless Obama can get his early voting numbers to spike in the next two weeks he will lose OH.  If he loses there he loses, period.  Colorado has swung toward Mitt, VA and FL as well.  Election night will be fun and either side could still win but there is also a very good chance this could be a blowout.  WI, MI, IA, PA and even MN are within 3 to 4 points in the latest polls.  If VA and FL get called early it could be a Reagan/Carter type landslide.   

Actually CNN has reported that, and I agree with your opinion as to its significance.

What I enjoyed last night was hearing Obama say at one point that Romney's positions on the Middle East amounted to simply saying he agreed with Obama, but saying it more loudly, and then saying that Romney was wrong on everything in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2012, 09:36:28 am
From the PBS transcript:  http://www.gpb.org/news/2012/10/22/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate#

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney.... I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And you know, I'm glad that Governor Romney agrees with the steps that we're taking. You know, there have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign, where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the some things we did, but you'd say them louder and somehow that that would make a difference....

Then in his concluding statement --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney wants to take us back to those policies: a foreign policy that's wrong and reckless....

So Obama was essentially calling his own foreign policy "wrong and reckless."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 23, 2012, 11:05:03 am
Then you'll be pleasantly surprised on election night JR.  I have a relative who works in the Romney campaign and trust me, this debate performance tonight was safe for a reason.  Mitt is ahead and did nothing to jeopardize that tonight.  The untold story not being told in OH right now is how far Mitt has closed the gap on early voting.  Republicans are doing better in every single county in the state on early voting over 2008.  McCain actually won more votes on election night but had already lost due to the early voting.  Unless Obama can get his early voting numbers to spike in the next two weeks he will lose OH.  If he loses there he loses, period.  Colorado has swung toward Mitt, VA and FL as well.  Election night will be fun and either side could still win but there is also a very good chance this could be a blowout.  WI, MI, IA, PA and even MN are within 3 to 4 points in the latest polls.  If VA and FL get called early it could be a Reagan/Carter type landslide.   

Maybe.  Politico also made a pretty interesting point that Romney may have been trying to improve himself with women voters by not being that confrontational and trying not to look like a war monger.  A lot of the pundits also thought Obama's answer about reducing the Navy wouldn't play well in Virginia, and Romney was already seeming to be pulling out to a little bit of a lead there. 

Still, there isn't much evidence that Romney is ahead in Ohio, and I'm not sure anything that happened last night is going to change that.  Granted, I still don't understand how if Romney's tied or slightly ahead nationally that he can be trailing in Ohio, but that's what just about every poll has been saying up to this point.  I guess we'll just see how it all plays out, though.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 23, 2012, 11:11:49 am
I remember Reagan Carter.  Going into the final week they were almost a dead heat, according to polsters who warned that there was a 3 to 5 point margin of error.  One of my friends pointed out that one might be as much as 10 points up on the other; and he was right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on October 23, 2012, 12:47:09 pm
PPP which does the polling for Daily Kos, has Ohio as a tie on their last poll. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2012, 02:27:57 pm
PPP which does the polling for Daily Kos, has Ohio as a tie on their last poll. 

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 23, 2012, 03:35:16 pm
PPP which does the polling for Daily Kos, has Ohio as a tie on their last poll. 

Actually, the last poll from PPP on the RealClearPolitics website had Obama +1, but not too much of a difference.

Still, all the recent RCP polls in Ohio either have a tie or Obama up.  The only Ohio polls at all that show Romney up (by only +1) since early September are Gravis Marketing, WeAskAmerica, and ARG, and those aren't included in the current RCP average.  Gravis and WeAskAmerica are also very Republican leaning and haven't really performed well in the past.

It still seems like Romney has some ground he needs to make up there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on October 23, 2012, 04:14:42 pm
Fivethirtyeight.com still has Obama almost a 3-to-1 favorite in Ohio (72% likelihood that Obama will win vs. 28% for Romney).  Their projection shows Obama getting 50.4% of the vote compared to Romney's 48.3%.  That difference is well within the margin of error, but is still big enough to have Obama as the clear favorite for now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 23, 2012, 04:26:22 pm
How is Gary Johnson doing?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 23, 2012, 04:28:00 pm
One interesting thing I just noticed on fivethirtyeight a minute ago is that it now has Romney as the favorite in Virginia.

The one good thing about the way Romney's trending is that it looks like he's finally getting Florida and Virginia back in his column.  The Big 3 for him has always been Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, so at least 2 of the 3 are finally starting to behave like the slightly Republican leaning states they've generally been.  If those two are finally trending towards him, maybe Ohio will sooner or later too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 23, 2012, 04:29:22 pm
Ohio is the big one.  Very unlikely either candidate wins without winning Ohio.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 23, 2012, 04:30:09 pm
As Lewis Black says, why don't Romney and Obama go to Ohio and talk to the half dozen morons who are undecided and leave the rest of us the hell alone?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 23, 2012, 04:32:33 pm
Actually I posted a comment on fivethirtyeight about why Obama is outperforming his national numbers in Ohio.  A couple of guys from Northern Ohio (big Democrat territory) noted 1. the economy in Ohio hasn't been as bad as it is nationally, 2. the auto bailout there is popular, and 3. the attacks Obama is making about Bain Capital shipping manufacturing jobs overseas have been pretty effective. 

Maybe that's why Romney's doing worse than a Republican should be doing in Ohio.  Who knows?  It certainly seems like he hasn't quite picked up the momentum there that he has in Florida or Virginia, though.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 23, 2012, 04:35:56 pm
Ohio is the big one.  Very unlikely either candidate wins without winning Ohio.

Lewis Black is awesome.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on October 24, 2012, 08:18:29 am
As Lewis Black says, why don't Romney and Obama go to Ohio and talk to the half dozen morons who are undecided and leave the rest of us the hell alone?

Awesome.

There was also a great bit on the Daily Show last week, where John Oliver had a focus group watching the debate (comprised of people ranging from a body language expert to a "guy who works at a tie store" to an "easily bored teenager"), and then went to a focus group watching the focus group, and finally went to a lone dude from Ohio, which was "the only focus group that really effing matters" (or something like to that effect). 

Pretty nice job of mocking Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., and also pointing out the likely state of the election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 26, 2012, 05:13:57 pm
I don't know if you can draw any conclusions from this or not, but one thing I've had trouble understanding is how Romney can be up or down a point or two overall to Obama but still be trailing in a lot of these battlegrounds.  From that, you would have to conclude that people are projecting that a lot of Romney's improvement has to come from states that don't matter.

So just taking the vote projections at FiveThirtyEight, I compared their projected spread in each state to 2008 to see how each state compares and to see how big Romney's projected improvement is in each state compared to McCain in 2008.

At FiveThirtyEight right now, they're projecting Obama at 50.2% and Romney at 48.7%.  Doing this exercise, you wind up with Obama 50.32% and Romney at 48.64% nationally, so that's pretty close.  Based on that projection, Romney has improved on McCain's 2008 numbers by 5.59% (FiveThirtyEight) or 5.65% (spreadsheet).  So any of these states that have a Romney improvement over 5.65% should mean he's improved more over McCain's numbers than he has nationally.

I guess part of me wonders if places like Idaho, Mississippi, Kansas, Nebraska, etc. really do hate Obama so much more than they did in 2008 that they're well above Romney's national improvement over McCain in '08.  Or that places like California, Delaware (Biden), Hawaii, California, etc. would be showing above average improvements for Romney (or really any improvement for Romney over 2008 at all).

Romney Improvement over 2008 (National Average 5.65%)

 
Utah
17.73
Indiana
11.54
Hawaii
10.77
Connecticut
10.27
Idaho
10.27
Wisconsin 10.01 
Nevada 9.7 
Kansas
9.64
Michigan 9.27 
Nebraska
8.87
Mississippi
8.42
Colorado 8.25 
North Dakota
8.17
Massachusetts
8.11
South Dakota
8.09
Missouri
7.86
Montana
7.83
Iowa
7.54
New Hampshire 7.41 
California
6.76
New Mexico
6.73
Oregon
6.25
Delaware
6.09
Virginia 5.9 
Wyoming
5.86
Georgia
5.49
Pennsylvania 5.45 
Illinois
5.34
Alabama
5.32
Washington
5.07
Texas
4.93
New Jersey
4.87
South Carolina
4.73
Vermont
4.5
West Virginia
4.48
Maine
4.11
Florida 4.11 
Louisiana
3.87
Kentucky
3.47
North Carolina 3.43 
Maryland
3.35
Arkansas
3.34
Oklahoma
3.3
Minnesota
3.04
Rhode Island
2.92
Tennessee
2.73
Ohio 2.29 
New York
2.15
Alaska
0.87
District of Columbia
0.83
Arizona
-0.42
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 26, 2012, 05:21:22 pm
Romney's going to make Mondale look like William the Conquerer.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 27, 2012, 05:20:09 am
http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=2456. This is a good look at the problems with Nate Silver's model.  There is a reason Obama is in panic mode, he's losing and potentially by a lot.  With Mitt ahead  4 in CO, 2 in NH and closing out VA, FL and NC that would mean he needs OH, PA, MI or WI to win.  He is tied or a point ahead in all 4 in polling this weekend and is only down 2 in MN.  Historically undecideds break overwhelmingly to the challenger which means it is nearly impossible for Mitt not to win at least one more. 

Gallup came out  with some shocking news today that no one is talking about.  They found that the composition of the electorate will be R+3 this year.  Considering the polls are ranging from D+3-D+9, election day could be quite a nasty shock for the poor folks at MSNBC.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on October 27, 2012, 05:30:02 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx  Here is the link to that Gallup poll. In 08 the composition of the electorate was 54-42 Democrat.  This poll found in 2012 that it will be 49-46 Republican.  In 04 it was even and Bush won.  So even Republican leaning Rasmussen is at D+3 right now and could be way off.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on October 28, 2012, 08:39:17 am
Des Moines Register endorsed Romney, first time they've endorsed a Republican since Nixon/McGovern.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on October 29, 2012, 11:58:53 am
What does everyone think of Theo being a Democrat?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 29, 2012, 12:09:08 pm
What does everyone think of Theo being a Democrat?

I bet he and Joe Ricketts have some interesting conversations.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on October 29, 2012, 02:08:14 pm
DaveP may remember some of these ads from back in the day.  Just in case you thought today's political advertising and mudslinging is the worst in history . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLj6yY4P_Rg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLj6yY4P_Rg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 01, 2012, 11:52:35 am
Seems like the president has the momentum now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 01, 2012, 12:00:17 pm
Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 01, 2012, 12:06:36 pm
I don't know if momentum is the right word but it looks like Obama's kept all of his slim leads in places like Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.  Romney just doesn't seem to be making any headway in Ohio, and he pretty much has to if he's going to win.

Nate Silver today equated it with a football team having a 3 point lead with 3 minutes to play.  A team like that is a solid 79% favorite to win the game, but it's by no means a given that they're going to win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 12:23:58 pm
JR, Obama only has a lead if the polls are accurate.

There is more than ample reason to believe they are not.

When their polling sample regularly includes a significantly higher percentage of voters who self identify as Democrats than the actual election turnout is likely to have, and when Democrats quite reasonably overwhelmingly support the Democratic candidate, the support for that Democratic candidate will end up over-stated by close to the same percentage by which the polling sample over-samples Democrats.  And that is exactly what the pollsters have been doing -- over-representing self-identified Democrats in their polling samples.

Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 01, 2012, 12:42:19 pm
Silver has put a large bet on the state polls being more accurate than the national polls.  I've followed him in the past and he seems far more political this year than in previous election cycles.  If he's wrong he's going to be out a lot more than his $1000 bet with Scarbaugh.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 01:19:44 pm
Silver has put a large bet on the state polls being more accurate than the national polls.  I've followed him in the past and he seems far more political this year than in previous election cycles.  If he's wrong he's going to be out a lot more than his $1000 bet with Scarbaugh.

I disagree, at least with your last sentence.

If he is wrong, the liberals who worship his a$$ now will still worship his a$$.... and they will use his predictions to support their claim that Romney is not legitimately the president and got the office only by virtue of election fraud.

I do agree that he is far more partisan this year than in the past, and that partisanship is coming while he CLAIMS to be less partisan.  In past elections he used to be much more candid about his political leanings.  Now he makes more of an effort to hide them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 01, 2012, 01:29:04 pm
Silver has put a large bet on the state polls being more accurate than the national polls.  I've followed him in the past and he seems far more political this year than in previous election cycles.  If he's wrong he's going to be out a lot more than his $1000 bet with Scarbaugh.

Yeah he is putting a lot more stock in state polls.  A few days ago, I posted the improvements Romney would have over McCain 2008 in all of the other states for Nate's model to work out.  All of his state polling actually does reconcile back to what he's predicting the national popular vote will be (I actually took some time to plug all of that into a spreadsheet, and it checks out.), but I still kind of question whether Romney's going to have that big of improvement in places like Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, California, etc.  Guess we'll see.

From reading Silver's blog pretty regularly, I don't really think he's being that much more political than he's been in the past, though.  At least, I'm not sensing it too much in his writing.  Granted, he's been really reluctant to ever show Romney leading in places like Virginia and Colorado, where he's been doing better lately.  He's also been including online polls from Google and RAND in his national calculations that have Obama up a lot more than most traditional pollsters, and I'm wondering if he's weighing those about as equally as "reputable" polls like ABC, NPR, Battleground, etc. where Romney has been leading.

Pretty much, though, it comes down to Ohio, and I still don't see a lot of good evidence that Romney is leading there.  He's up in Rasmussen but down with everyone else.  Hard to fault a guy for making Obama a solid favorite to win the election when most of the polling still shows Romney trailing in the one state he really needs to win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 01, 2012, 03:09:50 pm
Intrade has Obama as a 2:1 favorite.  A lot of people evidently don't understand Jesmath.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 03:11:32 pm
I actually see it as hard to give much credence to a guy who is accepting polls which are so clearly skewed.  They are over-representing Dems in their samples and under-representing Republicans.  Of course Obama is doing well in their polling.  Adjust for that oversampling of Dems and undersampling of Republicans and you get the same result Rasmussen gets.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 03:16:05 pm
Sadly amusing to watch the CNN coverage of the storm aftermath in NYC.  Folks on Staten Island are complaining that no one has been there to help them.  No local officials.  No FEMA,  No Red Cross, and in an area where 12 people died, and where many rode it out because they were never told to evacuate.  Wolf Blitzer asking how they are reacting and why they believe they have been ignored....

I was almost expecting someone to say they felt it was because Bush is a racist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 01, 2012, 04:03:45 pm
I just disagree about Nate.  To me when questioned about his methods and assumptions he's been more of a douche than in the past.  It might be that following him on twitter has colored my judgement as well.  I think President Obama has a slightly better chance at winning, but it wouldn't surprise me if Mitt won either. 
1.) The state and national polls aren't consistent.
2.) A lot of polls with 2008 turnout models, when Republicans are more motivated.
3.) Romney is winning independents by a wide margin, but losing in those same polls.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 04:27:26 pm
2.) A lot of polls with 2008 turnout models, when Republicans are more motivated.
3.) Romney is winning independents by a wide margin, but losing in those same polls.



GIGO.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 01, 2012, 07:32:27 pm
CNN Ohio Exit Poll Results:

2004 - 40% Republican, 36% Democrat
2006 - 40% Democrat, 37% Republican
2008 - 39% Democrat, 31% Republican
2010 - 37% Republican, 36% Democrat (CBS)

Most Recent Real Clear Politics Polls:

Ohio University - 45.3% Democrat, 43.3% Republican (Obama +2)
Survey USA - 38% Democrat, 32% Republican (Obama +3)
Gravis - 40% Democrat, 32% Republican (Obama +1)
CBS/New York Times - 37% Democrat, 29% Republican (Obama +5)
American Research Group - 43% Democrat, 34% Republican (Obama +2)
Purple Strategies - 34% Democrat, 27% Republican (Obama +2)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 01, 2012, 07:40:04 pm
I hadn't really taken the time to dig into each of those polls before tonight.  Each of those polls besides Ohio University has a Democrat edge anywhere from 6-10%, but 2008 is the only time in the last four elections where Democrats have had that much of a turnout edge.

What Silver has said in the past about that is if you reweight the samples based on what you think turnout is going to be as opposed to what you actually sample, you'll miss changes in the electorate.  I guess we'll see, but that does seem awfully questionable that Obama is having that much of a turnout edge in those polls.  Obviously if Ohio turns out 6-10% more Democrats than Republicans on election night, Obama's in good shape.

If the turnout is more like 2004, 2006, or 2010, those polls probably aren't going to be accurate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on November 01, 2012, 08:00:09 pm
He's also been including online polls from Google and RAND in his national calculations that have Obama up a lot more than most traditional pollsters, and I'm wondering if he's weighing those about as equally as "reputable" polls like ABC, NPR, Battleground, etc. where Romney has been leading.

If you take a gallon of chocolate ice cream and mix it with a gallon of crap, chances are it's going to taste like crap.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 01, 2012, 08:04:15 pm
What Silver has said in the past about that is if you reweight the samples based on what you think turnout is going to be as opposed to what you actually sample, you'll miss changes in the electorate.

What does this mean?  Is he saying that he takes a totally random sample of 3000 (or whatever) people with no concern whatsoever about how many are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents?  And then assumes that that is representative of the electorate as a whole?

I'm by no means any sort of statistics expert, but that seems remarkably arbitrary and, frankly, stupid.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 08:14:26 pm
I hadn't really taken the time to dig into each of those polls before tonight.  Each of those polls besides Ohio University has a Democrat edge anywhere from 6-10%, but 2008 is the only time in the last four elections where Democrats have had that much of a turnout edge.

~sigh~ I think I have pointed that out at least a couple of times....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 08:22:32 pm
but that seems remarkably....  stupid.

Much as I would like to say it does not SEEM stupid, but that it IS stupid, it is most likely far worse than that.

Neither Silver, nor the stat-heads at the networks (and all of them will have in-house folks with considerable polling expertise -- it is fairly common for political journalists to have at least a working background in such matters; when I was an undergrad in Journalism school 30+ years ago, public opinion polling are a course nearly anyone expecting to report on politics took, and in it we actually conducted public opinion surveys and were required to do them right), nor the real pollsters running some of these polls, are stupid enough to simply make a mistake by that innocently, particularly when many critics have pointed the problem out to them.

With many of them this amounts to an effort to influence the ultimate outcome.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on November 01, 2012, 08:31:56 pm
Wait, the new GOP talking point is that there is some grand conspiracy to fix polls in order to influence voter behavior? Really? Just going to pretend that this is just a Colbert satire piece and remind myself nothing much good comes from coming into this section of the BBF....
Go Cubs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 01, 2012, 08:38:51 pm
And the new Leftist talking point is that that DOESN'T happen?

That, my friends, is rock-solid American comedy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 01, 2012, 08:53:05 pm
Quote
Is he saying that he takes a totally random sample of 3000 (or whatever) people with no concern whatsoever about how many are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents? And then assumes that that is representative of the electorate as a whole?

Yeah I think that's his position. If the sample you're interviewing reflects a 7 point edge for the Democrats, then he doesn't think it should be reweighted because that's the poll's representation of turnout on election day.  If you readjust, you might miss changes in the electorate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 01, 2012, 09:02:05 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 01, 2012, 09:31:40 pm
Yeah I think that's his position. If the sample you're interviewing reflects a 7 point edge for the Democrats, then he doesn't think it should be reweighted because that's the poll's representation of turnout on election day.  If you readjust, you might miss changes in the electorate.

If it were a TRULY random sample of the entire universe of subjects the sample sought to poll, that would be the case, but when the sample is distorted by a wide variety of factors, than it is NOT the case.

And when the demographic or party affiliation breakdown of the sample is at odds with what what you know about the entire universe of subjects the sample seeks to poll, you know there is a distortion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 01, 2012, 09:48:36 pm
If Obama wins, it will only be because the pollsters predicted he would win, and that swayed an electorate that otherwise would have picked Romney.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 01, 2012, 10:46:46 pm
I think this sums up Silver's views on reweighting polls for party identification.  This first one was something he wrote after that Pew poll that showed Romney up 4 points after the Denver debate and Democrats were complaining about it being weighted towards Republicans.

Quote
One line of complaint about the poll has come from Democrats, who noted that the poll showed more Republicans than Democrats in its sample — unlike most other recent surveys.

I feel the same way about this critique that I do when it comes from Republicans — which is to say I don’t think very much of it. As The Washington Post’s Jon Cohen notes, party identification is fluid rather than fixed, and can change in reaction to political and news events. If voters are feeling better about Mr. Romney after the debates, they might also be inclined to identify themselves to pollsters as Republicans.

It is probably also the case that Republicans won’t actually have a 5-point party identification advantage in the exit poll on Election Day. But it isn’t the pollster’s job to project what will happen on Nov. 6. (That’s my job, instead!) Rather, the pollster’s job is to take the most accurate snapshot of the electorate at the time the poll is conducted. Note that the Rasmussen Reports polls, which (improperly, in my view) adjust for party identification, show very little bounce for Mr. Romney. The party-identification adjustment is causing them to miss the story of the election — just as they were largely missing the story of Mr. Obama’s bounce following his convention.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/oct-8-a-great-poll-for-romney-in-perspective/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/oct-8-a-great-poll-for-romney-in-perspective/)

Quote
Our forecasts adjust for these pollster “house effects” (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/) — whether pollsters are Republican- or Democratic-leaning relative to the consensus. But one innovation that we might consider in future years is to also apply an adjustment for the variance or “swinginess” in a poll. Some pollsters, like Public Policy Polling, American Research Group and Gallup, show more pronounced fluctuations. In others, like Rasmussen Reports and polls for the online firm YouGov, the numbers seem to move much less. There are sometimes logical reasons why these patterns occur — Rasmussen Reports, for example, weighs the results by party identification, which tends to dampen swings (if also potentially missing real changes in the electorate).

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2012, 06:45:03 am
JR, if the poll sample were truly random, then Silver's position would make perfect sense, but it is not close to random.

If 10% of those called hangup because they simply do not like pollsters, there is a high likelihood that similar behavioral or ideological or personality traits in those folks will lead them to support or oppose one candidate or the other at a higher rate, too.  If another 10% of those called do not get the call because they are working when the calls are made, the same thing.  If 50% of the population no longer even has a landline but instead relies entirely on cell phones so they don't even get included in the same, the same thing.  The potential distortions are not just too numerous to list, they are literally too numerous to imagine.  And that is why the pollster needs to adjust the sample to reflect such factors.

While I agree with Silver that party affiliation is fluid, is is not nearly so fluid as he suggests.

Folks don't say they are R in the morning, D in the afternoon, and then move back to R in the evening.  You instead tend to have people say they belong to one party, but that they support a candidate or a few candidates or positions of the other party, and then shift so they so so even more, and then gradually change.

Researchers have found that once a person decides on their party affiliation in their first few elections (if they decide they are affiliated with one), they tend to remain with that self-identification for decades.  It changes seldom and slowly.

Silver HAS to know these things.  He is a sharp guy.  His comments do not sound like explanations, or even true rationalization by someone actually trying himself to believe what he is saying... they instead come across as the comments of a con man, someone trying to make others believe him, even when he knows he is spewing utter BS.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 02, 2012, 07:09:18 am
".... they instead come across as the comments of a con man, someone trying to make others believe him, even when he knows he is spewing utter BS."

I guess that's worse than spewing utter BS without knowing it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 02, 2012, 07:17:44 am
P2, I've often wondered about these polls and their purpose.  I can understand when a politician might like to know that he's wasting money in Montana because he's 12 points behind, but what good does it do for the rest of us?  I guess it's the same fascination with fortune tellers and tarot cards.  We want to know the future.

If I heard my candidate was down two points in my state, would that encourage me to go vote or say the hell with it?  Everybody's response to that would probably be different.  If my guy was UP two points, would that encourage me to go vote to make sure that happened or get overconfident and go fishing?

Here in Illinois, I know that the only reason I'm voting is for the local guys, a few of whom I know personally.  Presidential race?  Doesn't matter who I vote for.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 02, 2012, 07:18:18 am
The hell with pollsters.  I'm waiting for Beerfan's assessment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 02, 2012, 08:56:59 am
An article: Nate Silver’s Braying Idiot Detractors Show That Being Ignorant About Politics Is Like Being Ignorant About Sports

http://updates.deadspin.com/post/34780905169/nate-silvers-braying-idiot-detractors-show-that-being
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 02, 2012, 09:19:50 am
Roher is obviously a Democratic hack.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 02, 2012, 09:26:02 am
Ultimately it looks like Nate Silver's main bet is with voter turnout.  His position is that the mainstream polls generally reflect what voter turnout will be on election day. 

He's pretty much made the case that state polling averages have done a good job historically of predicting the winner in each state . . . at least when the polling average shows a lead of greater than 1.5%.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/oct-26-state-poll-averages-usually-call-election-right/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/oct-26-state-poll-averages-usually-call-election-right/)

And as mentioned earlier, he thinks state polls shouldn't tinker with party ID weight.  Therefore, if the Ohio state polling shows Obama leading by at least 2% on election day, I'm sure his case is that Obama is very unlikely to lose, regardless of how the polls in that state weight party ID, because that's what history suggests.

It'll be interesting to see if he turns out to be right.  Someone's going to wind up with a lot of egg on their face one way or the other it looks like.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2012, 09:42:11 am
Here in Illinois, I know that the only reason I'm voting is for the local guys, a few of whom I know personally.  Presidential race?  Doesn't matter who I vote for.

Actually it matters a good deal.

When candidates run for office, or when they GOVERN while they are in office, the best way to tell what their constituents want, or what they need to be given or promised to get them to support the candidate in the next election, is to look at how they voted in the past election.

This is why I always feel quite comfortable voting for the Libertarian candidate (with the exception of Bob Barr in 2008, because Barr is a disgusting piece of human flesh and the Libertarians never should have nominated the guy in the first place).

I know that the prospect my vote will make any difference in the ultimate outcome, particularly when the electoral system awards votes by state, and the winner of the state most of us will be in is pretty clearly determined well before we vote (as is the case in Illinois), and voting for Romney or Obama will make no difference to the outcome of the election, and will be so hard for anyone to sort out what it means that it will not matter at all.

But a vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, when the party's principles are very clear and very easily understood can make a difference.

If those seeking office 2 years or 4 years from now, including all of those seeking re-election, want to win, they will look for how they can collect enough votes to accomplish that, and if they see a pool of votes which they feel they can attract or win by advancing a particular cause or issue, and they can do so without losing too many other votes, they will do so.

This is why for most of us the best choice we can make is the 3rd party candidate advancing clear, well identified positions we agree with.... unless, of course, we really do not identify closely with ANY of the 3rd party candidates and we instead agree to a very strong degree with one of the major party candidates.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 02, 2012, 09:57:51 am
An article: Nate Silver’s Braying Idiot Detractors Show That Being Ignorant About Politics Is Like Being Ignorant About Sports

http://updates.deadspin.com/post/34780905169/nate-silvers-braying-idiot-detractors-show-that-being

Silver became well-known among baseball statisticians in 2003, when he debuted his PECOTA projection system on Baseball Prospectus.

So my skepticism about Silver is a natural.... I have long felt and argued that PECOTA also is over-hyped, has very limited value, and quite often provides predictions which anyone looking closely should be able to tell are highly likely to be of the mark.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 03, 2012, 06:47:01 pm
On the previous page, JR showed the party identification from the Ohio polls, and their higher (D) vs (R) reporting - which many think is unrealistic. But what was not discussed was that a significant share of those surveyed identified as independent.

We know that some portion of self-identified "independents" are in actually in practice reliably conservative or liberal. And some are even far left or right, such as Bernie Sanders and many of those in the Tea Party.

So since Romney is showing such a lead among "independents," it might be reasonable to project that many of them really belong in the Republican column - which would thus lessen the strength of the argument that polls are skewed towards Democrats.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 04, 2012, 12:34:30 am
Truly you have a dizzying intellect. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 04, 2012, 10:13:13 am
Not reasonable? The population of "Independents" should be assumed to be perfectly centered? Why?

Maybe if God assigned the label based on His own objectivity. But remember, these are self-identified, and party identification is fluid. In the 2010 Republican wave election, a very high portion identified as independent. That suggests strongly that the net of this group were reliably conservative.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 04, 2012, 10:24:13 am
A great many people that consider themselves independent, are either strong liberals or strong conservatives (and some libertarians).  I, myself, do not consider myself a Republican because they are, for the most part, too liberal for me.  In the presidential election, I will vote for the person that I believe to be the most conservative of the two candidates, which is almost always the republican.  I will vote for Romney, for instance, even though he is much too liberal for my tastes on many issues.  As bad as he is, he is infinitely better than obama.

When asked by callers what my party affiliation is, I always say independent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 04, 2012, 10:43:12 am
I tend to agree that among my acquaintances, those who claim to be Independents are usually Republicans who feel disenfranchised.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 04, 2012, 10:55:05 am
If Pennsylvania and Michigan are really in play, Romney has a real chance:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Nate Silver doesn't think much of Romney's chances in either state, however, giving him a 3% and 1% chance the latest polls notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 04, 2012, 11:23:17 am
I believe he said it's 5% in PA today. So he's got momentum.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 04, 2012, 05:23:08 pm
Not reasonable? The population of "Independents" should be assumed to be perfectly centered? Why?

Maybe if God assigned the label based on His own objectivity. But remember, these are self-identified, and party identification is fluid. In the 2010 Republican wave election, a very high portion identified as independent. That suggests strongly that the net of this group were reliably conservative.

Who really knows?  The latest NBC/WSJ/Marist polls that had Obama up 6% in Ohio had Republican and Democrat leaning independents about even.  I'm not really sure what to make of that.  Seems like the NBC and CBS polls have easily been Romney's worst performing polls, but they're also some of few polling firms that include cell phones in their surveys. 

Pretty much, we're not going to know until election day how this all pans out.  If the Ohio state polls are accurately reflecting what turnout will be on election day, then Obama's going to win, and Nate Silver is going to be vindicated saying that state polling has historically been a very reliable measurement of how things will pan out on election day.  If not, he and a lot of these polling firms are going to have a lot of egg on their faces.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 04, 2012, 06:13:53 pm
The Redskins lost, means Obama is going to lose.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 04, 2012, 06:37:17 pm
LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 04, 2012, 07:14:32 pm
Nate Silver will adjust his odds accordingly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 09:55:42 am
The next to the last paragraph underscores the problem with most of the polling this year.

Morning Jolt – November 5, 2012
By Jim Geraghty

We’re almost there.

Here’s your Morning Jolt. Enjoy.

Jim

A Quick Trip Down Memory Lane of Recent Polling

So a lot of people who don’t read me that closely are going to look at what follows and interpret it as “Jim’s saying the polls are always wrong.” That’s not what I’m saying, but I’m prefacing all of this with that prediction, because we’ve all seen that when people don’t like what you have to say, they attempt to cut off discussion by calling you insane or silly. Sneering “truther” in response to a disagreement from the conventional wisdom is almost as worn out as “racist.”

At the heart of the entire point of polling political races is the assuption that the people in the sample are a realistic representation of the folks who will vote in the election. Now that the response rate for polls has plummeted all the way down to 9 percent — that is, out of every 100 calls the pollster makes, only 9 are completed — getting a sample that looks like the likely electorate in Election Day is tougher and tougher.

So pollsters adjust, they make extra calls and make sure they have a sample that is properly balanced by gender, by race, by age, and often times, by geography of the nation or state that they’re polling. They do this based on this fairly simple conclusion — the makeup of the kind of people who will answer questions from a pollster for ten or twenty minutes may not accurately represent the makeup of who will vote in the election. So if one gender, racial group, age group, or region may be more likely to take the time to answer questions than another, why not one party?

Folks like me have been wondering for a while whether folks on the right — with distrust and suspicion of the media fueled by decades’ worth of stories and examples and anecdotes of what they deem media bias — are more likely to hang up on the pollster, and/or urge him to do anatomically difficult things to himself, than folks on the left. Think of this as an American version of the “Shy Tory” factor.

Look back at history:

In 2002, Democrats argued, and a media who largely agreed, that President George W. Bush had been “selected, not elected” in 2004, and contended that despite the events of 9/11, and the talk of war with Iraq, Democrats would thrive in the midterm elections.

I found this article describing the difference between the late polls and the final results on a lefty site charging massive voter fraud in favor of the Republicans. He summarizes:

    14 races showed a post opinion poll swing towards the Republican Party (by between 3 and 16 points);

    - 2 races showed a post opinion poll swing towards the Democratic Party (by 2 and 4 points);

    - In three races the pollsters were close to correct;

    - The largest post opinion poll vote swings occurred in Minnesota and Georgia where pollsters got the final result wrong

2004: Bob Shrum was calling John Kerry “Mr. President” after seeing the first round of exit polls. Think about it — this wasn’t just guessing who would actually vote, everybody coming out of a polling place was a definite voter. Even then, it got thrown off because Kerry voters were much more willing to talk to the exit pollsters than Bush voters:

    Interviewing for the 2004 exit polls was the most inaccurate of any in the past five presidential elections as procedural problems compounded by the refusal of large numbers of Republican voters to be surveyed led to inflated estimates of support for John F. Kerry, according to a report released yesterday by the research firms responsible for the flawed surveys.

    The exit pollsters emphasized that the flaws did not produce a single incorrect projection of the winner in a state on election night. But "there were 26 states in which the estimates produced by the exit poll data overstated the vote for John Kerry . . . and there were four states in which the exit poll estimates overstated the vote for George W. Bush," said Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research and Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International.

One other point: The exit pollsters were disproportionately collegiate women. Raise your hand if you think some men might be willing to tell a cute college coed that they voted for Kerry. Yup, me too.

2006: The popular vote in the House of Representatives races came out to 52 percent for the Democrats, 44 percent for Republicans, an eight-point margin. Some institutions came close on the generic ballot question, USA Today/Gallup (seven points), ABC News/Washington Post (six points), and Pew (four points). But others overstated it dramatically: Fox News (13 points), CNN (20 points), Newsweek (16 points), Time (15 points), and CBS/New York Times (18 points).

2008: If you’re a pollster who tends to overstate the number of Democrats in your sample, this was your year — fatigue over President Bush and war, a Wall Street collapse and economic meltdown, a drastically underfunded Republican candidate who spent much of his career fighting his own party, the first African-American nominee of a major party . . . and yet, some pollsters still overshot it: Marist, CBS News, and NBC/Wall Street Journal had Obama winning by nine, and Reuters had Obama winning by eleven, as did Gallup.

2010: Polling wasn’t quite as bad this cycle; everyone seemed to know a GOP wave was coming, and by the time Election Day rolled around, the GOP lead on the generic ballot turned out to have been overstated in quite a few of the later samples. But what’s interesting is how the polls indicating a GOP tsunami didn’t impact the conventional wisdom within Washington. The GOP’s gain of 63 seats — a final majority of 242 seats — was well beyond the total predicted by Politico’s John Harris and Jim Vandehei (224), NPR’s Ken Rudin (219), Arianna Huffington (228), and CNN’s Candy Crowley (223). This is not to argue a crazy conspiracy among the Washington crowd, just to point out that this year, for some reason, the polls didn’t influence the Beltway expectations — why, it’s almost as if poll results showing good news for Democrats are taken more seriously than ones showing good news for Republicans.

Then of course, you have the individual pollsters who sometimes go . . . well, haywire. Here’s from my piece about Zogby, who became the liberals’ pollster of choice in 2002 and 2004:

    In 2002, his final polls were pretty lousy. In Minnesota, Zogby predicted Democrat Walter Mondale over Republican Norm Coleman by 6 points; Coleman won by 3. In Colorado, Zogby picked Democrat Ted Strickland over GOP incumbent Wayne Allard by 5; Allard won by 5. In Georgia, Zogby picked Democrat Max Cleland over Republican Saxby Chambliss by 2; Chambliss won by 7. In Texas, Zogby’s final poll had Republican John Cornyn over Democrat Ron Kirk by 4 points; Cornyn won by 12. Zogby’s final poll in the Florida gubernatorial race had Jeb Bush winning by 15, but only three weeks earlier he had Bush winning by only 3. Bush won by 13 points.

    Late afternoon on Election Day [2004] —awfully late for a final call—Zogby predicted that Kerry would win Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico (0 for 4!) and get at least 311 votes in the Electoral College, while Bush was assured of only 213. (The remaining 14 electoral votes were too close to call.)

There’s no other way to say it: The Big Z’s final polls were garbage. His final poll had Colorado too close to call; Bush won by 7 points. He had Florida by a tenth of a percentage point for Kerry and “trending Kerry”; Bush won by 5 points. Zogby had Bush winning North Carolina by 3; the president won John Edwards’s home state by 13. Zogby had Bush leading Tennessee by 4; the president won by 14. Zogby called Virginia a “slight edge” for the GOP; Bush won by 8. In West Virginia, Zogby predicted a Bush win by 4; the president won by 13. And in the vital swing state of Wisconsin, Zogby had Kerry up by 6; the final margin was 1 point.

Zogby’s dramatically far-off results were, I would argue, fueled by a combination of hubristic overconfidence in his own ability to read the mood of the electorate and the desire to tell his biggest fans what they want to hear. I’ll let you conclude if you think that description might apply to any other pundit you see cited a lot these days — including myself.

Besides pollsters seeing what they want to see, we must recall the fairly recent example of Research 2000, which may not have actually conducted the surveys that it announced to the world. Here’s a good summary of that scandal:

    It came after Daily Kos published a statistical analysis of Research 2000's polls that alleged a series of statistical anomalies among the results. That analysis led Moulitsas to conclude that the weekly poll Research 2000 had conducted and run on Daily Kos during 2009 and 2010 "was likely bunk."

    Moulitsas added that Ali had "refused to offer any explanation" for the anomalies or turn over raw data as requested. Daily Kos lawyer Adam Bonin vowed to "file the appropriate discovery requests" in order to determine whether Ali had fabricated data.

    In a rambling public response published last July, Ali characterized "every charge" made by the Daily Kos lawsuit as "pure lies, plain and simple." He promised that "the motives as to why Kos is doing it will be revealed in the legal process."

    But by agreeing to a settlement, Ali leaves open the question of whether his data were in fact fabricated.

    The same July statement also included a comment that raised eyebrows among pollsters (typos in original):

        Yes we weight heavily and I will, using te margin of error adjust the top line and when adjusted under my discretion as both a pollster and social scientist, therefore all sub groups must be adjusted as well.

    After sending that statement, Ali disappeared from public view. Attempts to contact his email account temporarily bounced, his Twitter account went silent and the Research 2000 website started redirecting to a Wikipedia entry on opinion polls. Ali started posting again to his Twitter account two weeks ago, although he has so far not mentioned either the lawsuit or his polling business.

Now, not every pollster is making up their results; probably none of the polls we read about today are made up of whole cloth. But this case suggests that the most paranoid scenario — a pollster not really collecting data, just pretending to and telling the client some combination of what they want to hear and what sounds realistic — can happen.

I mention all of this because I hear from a lot of readers — up through this past weekend, in fact —some variation of “EEK! X poll shows my candidate down!”

Well, your candidate may be down. But you should know better than to panic over a poll, and you should know that there’s nothing anyone could or should be telling you to make you stop being as active as you are in these final hours. You should be checking the samples, to see if the partisan breakdown makes sense to you. If the percentage of Democrats in the sample is higher than the percentage of Democrats in the 2008 exit polls, some skepticism is warranted.

That’s how you find CNN releasing a poll Sunday night that has it tied, 49 percent to 49 percent, despite Mitt Romney winning independents by 22 points, 59 percent to 37 percent. Why? “Among those likely voters, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.”

If the electorate is D+11 Tuesday, Romney’s doomed. If Romney’s winning independents by 22, he’s winning in a landslide.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 05, 2012, 11:26:39 am
Jes Beard, both of those things can be true (and lead to a tight Obama win) if - as has been discussed in the recent posts - the population of self described "Independents" actually is a net conservative block and not a true gauge of the center.

If we divide that 29% according to the split you cite, then that's 17.1% you can add to the (R) total, 10.7% to the (D), and 1.2% truly undecided.

That would make it 52% (D) to 47% (R).

So it seems like the (R)s need to hope that the polls are somehow biased in favor of the (D) turnout by at least 5 points. Perhaps they are. We shall see.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 11:54:15 am
Some Guy, when 90% of those polled simply hang up or do not respond, a distortion of the sample is not just possible, it is extremely likely.

THAT is not so much a matter of "bias," but instead a matter of validity.

The polling results we are seeing are not far from meaningless.

But while the polling results might be meaningless, math still does have some meaning.

And the "math" you offer is exceedingly off the mark.

You want to allocate the independents in line with the percentage of voters who self-describe as D or R, and seemingly ignore that the independents are overwhelmingly supporting Romney.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 05, 2012, 12:25:52 pm
Jes Beard, I am going to assume your statement about my "math" was just emotional, and that you mean my assumptions are off the mark, not the arythmetic of my simple number crunching.

Maybe you're right. I can certainly see how the sampling could be distorted in many ways that could favor either side.

But please explain why the polling is systematically drawing conclusions that incorrectly favor the (D)s, and also why we should assume that the so-called "Independents" represent the center, rather than at least partially explaining the (D) vs (R) discrepancy.

You seem to see the D+11 as proof that the polls are skewed, but that relies on the assumption that the R # isn't depressed by true conservatives self-IDing as independent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 05, 2012, 12:26:26 pm
The election hinges on Jesmath!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 05, 2012, 12:35:34 pm
"You want to allocate the independents in line with the percentage of voters who self-describe as D or R, and seemingly ignore that the independents are overwhelmingly supporting Romney." - Jes Beard

It's not at matter of "wanting" to do anything, other than try to reconcile the numbers in the simplest manner. I believe that if you're going to deviate from what is most simple, you need to have strong reasons. Where are those reasons.

(Also, my allocation is based on Romney's poll numbers among this group, not the percentage who self-describe as D or R. So actually, I'm looking right at their support of Romney.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 12:55:48 pm
From the experience of actively observing 14 Presidential elections, including Reagan/Carter, Carter/Ford, and Bush I/Clinton, when the sitting President goes into the final days with the challenger this close, it is NOT a good sign for the sitting President.

Some of you guys who have greater interest than I, what were the final poll numbers for those 3 races?  I know in a fourth race, Truman/Dewey, the pollsters were really all wet, but their polling methods were really inadequate in '48.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 05, 2012, 12:58:03 pm
I read the Carter-Reagan election was also advertised as "neck-and-neck" to the very end...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 05, 2012, 01:02:03 pm
I guess we'll know tomorrow or Wednesday who is right, but for Some Guy's math to be correct that a greater share of independents are former Republicans than in previous years you would need a couple of things.  1) A fall in Republican registration (it has gone up in states that report it) 2.) A lower Republican share, with a higher independent share in polls.  Instead in the polls you are getting a higher D number than 2008 (a high point for D's), lower Republican share, stable independent share.  I guess you could argue that all the former independents voters went for independents to D's, but that wouldn't seem very likely.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 01:02:57 pm
I read the Carter-Reagan election was also advertised as "neck-and-neck" to the very end...
You read it.  I remember it.  I was in California and voted late that day.  There was no way in the world I was going to vote for Carter, or that I wanted him with another term of office.  While I had some concerns about Reagan, I was fully prepared to vote for him.  And when I got ready to head to the polls at about 6PM, Carter was giving his concession speech and the networks were in shock.  It allowed me to then comfortably vote Libertarian and I have been doing so ever since (with the exception of 2008 when I could not stomach voting for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 01:14:17 pm
I read the Carter-Reagan election was also advertised as "neck-and-neck" to the very end...

That's my point.  I think all three of those were...and the sitting President lost.

For Democrat friends, even if that happens, Obama is a young man.  If he loses tomorrow, I'll bet he runs again.  Better than Biden in '16.  :P   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 01:19:54 pm
The nation's first black governor will not endorse Obama.... and that is after endorsing him in 2008.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/nov/04/wilder-chooses-not-endorse-president-ar-2335331/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 05, 2012, 01:32:11 pm
I don't think there is any vast left-wing conspiracy, and I don't think the polls and related analysis are biased.  Romney just isn't that popular, and Obama is going to win fairly easily tomorrow. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on November 05, 2012, 01:49:31 pm
Great...4 more years of failure but hey, at least he's popular.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 05, 2012, 01:55:58 pm
Whoever wins, can you imagine what the post mortem will be like?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 01:56:59 pm
heh...looking for the polls on Carter/Ford and found this.  Just posting it here without comment:

"I'm sure you've noticed all the political campaign touting general election polls. Unfortunately, these polls have a terrible history of actually predicting who will in the fall. So what is Barack Obama leads everyone in Zogby, woop-dee-do! Does John Edwards leads in Rassmussen, oh my lord! Clinton leads in ARG? Yowsie! I'm going to explore how the polls have failed repeatedly, and show you the real margin of error. So next time you see a poll, read it with caution!

Here are some of the worst disasters of General Election polling from the last 24 years of Presidential elections. After this January's debacle in New Hampshire, can we just argue on the issues and the REASONS why to support a candidate, and ignore faulty polls?

1976

Late July - Gallup
Jimmy Carter 62%
Gerald Ford 30%

Final Results

Carter 50.1%
Ford 48.0%

Average MOE - 14.95%

This sort of shift would make it a blowout for either side of the aisle.

1980 (this one's for those of you who say - "polls shift over time")

Nov 1980, Gallup Pre-Election Poll
Carter 44%
Reagan 41%

Final Results

Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41.0%

Average MOE - 5.85% = the margin of error in every GE poll this year. This really embarrassed the pollsters, so of course, they went ahead and did it again.

1988

5/17 - NYT/CBS
Michael Dukakis 49%
George Bush 39%

Final Results
Bush 53.4%

Dukakis 45.6%

Average MOE - 7.9%

A shift like what occurred in 1988 would make any Democrat the winner or the loser by a healthy margin.

1992

June 1992 Time/CNN
Ross Perot 37%
George Bush 24%
Bill Clinton 24%

Final Results
Clinton 43.0%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%

Average MOE - 20.1%. Imagine if Bloomberg's runs, I foresee similar dynamics.

2000

Sept 2000 Newsweek
Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 39%

Final Results
Bush 47.9%
Gore 48.4%

Average MOE - 4.8%

So all the undecided went for Bush, eh? Polls are worthless in close races. Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it?

In conclusion, the only poll that matters is the one on election day."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 02:04:20 pm
Love him or hate him, the 2004 election of George W. Bush is exhibit 1 as to why the electoral college should be banished. The election tomorrow may be exhibit 2.

If it happens to both a Democrat and Republican in a period of eight years they have to kill the thing, right?

Also, for what it's worth in this discussion of popularity, Romney's favorability ratings are higher than Obama's. Mitt may not be popular, but neither is the other guy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 02:23:24 pm
I think that the founding fathers knew what they were doing with the electoral college.  Eliminating it would be another dagger in the hearts of rural and small town Americans, many of whom already feel disenfranchised.  In most cases I agree majority should rule, but we've seen all kinds of circumstances that minority rights need to be protected.  We don't need a system where 3 or 4 states can elect the President and screw everybody else.  I think the 2000 election did a lot of harm and created a lot of cynics for our system.  Eliminate the electoral college and in a race as close, you'd have every state in the Union going through the same recounts and scrutiny as Florida.  I wouldn't want to see that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 02:39:31 pm
Personally, I think the notion that the electoral college somehow protects rural voters, small states, etc., is absolutely bogus.

As it is, in our current system, the two candidates are basically ignoring all but a handful of states. Ask conservative voters in California how much attention they've gotten from the Romney campaign. Ask liberal voters in Texas how much attention they've gotten from the Obama campaign. I think it was SNL that did a recent cable news parody that featured the "only focus group that mattered, one dude from Ohio." It's hilarious (and sad) because it's true. All the electoral college does is place undue weight on states that happen to have a large number of independent voters. Why should their vote matter any more than that of any other person? And if you want to talk about the disenfranchisement of rural Americans, ask downstate voters in Illinois what their vote is worth. This is repeated throughout the country.

The electoral college sets up an uneven playing field in which some votes matter more than others. How un-American is that? Kill the thing once and for all, so that EVERYONE'S vote counts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 05, 2012, 02:41:19 pm
I agree.  The United States was considered to be a union of states, with each state being equal in many respects.  There was no way states like Georgia would have joined the union if they could be voted down by Philidelphia or Boston alone.

The Constitution was a stroke of genius, which gave weight to high-population states without eliminating the rights of low-population states.  I would hate to see the electoral college eliminated, regardless of who wins the popular vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 02:44:00 pm
"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

- Hamilton

This is one of the main reasons why the college was created, and this isn't how it works any more.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 02:54:24 pm
"It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

- Hamilton

This is one of the main reasons why the college was created, and this isn't how it works any more.

Hamilton listed TWO reasons in the passage you quoted.  I have deleted the first, and the second one certainly remains as strong as ever.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 03:01:56 pm
As witnessed in 2004, the electoral college doesn't necessarily limit "tummult and disorder."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 03:04:36 pm
Curt, Dave (you guys may have missed my earlier post) or anyone else have thoughts on the way the current system effectively disenfranchises millions?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 03:05:48 pm
As witnessed in 2004, the electoral college doesn't necessarily limit "tummult and disorder."

I think it did.  It was limited to Florida and the judicial process there and then appealed to the Supreme Court.  That's limited.  I will tell you again.  Going straight popular vote you won't like the results.  Ever.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Coach on November 05, 2012, 03:08:00 pm
First I've seen this cycle of any internals:  Romney internal poll shows him +1 in OH.  If that's true, Bronco Bamma is melba.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228359/Romney-campaign-internal-polling-puts-Republican-nominee-point-ahead-Ohio.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 03:09:30 pm
If it had been straight popular, there would not have been a fight. Gore won by a margin plenty large. But the votes of 30,000 in Florida were deemed more important than hundreds of thousands who voted for Gore.

By the way, earlier post should have read 2000, not 2004.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 05, 2012, 03:56:44 pm
What tumult was there after the election of 2004?  I assume you are talking about the Gore/Bush election of 2000, but as Curt said, that was an example of the system working.  The courts settled the situation, and there was a peaceful transition of power from one party to another.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 04:00:16 pm
As I said immediately above, I meant to say 2000, not 2004.

Still curious to hear people's perspectives as to how the current system doesn't disenfranchise millions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 05, 2012, 04:06:11 pm
I wonder how much longer it will be before enough states sign up for this to go into effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 04:20:47 pm
What tumult was there after the election of 2004?  I assume you are talking about the Gore/Bush election of 2000, but as Curt said, that was an example of the system working.  The courts settled the situation, and there was a peaceful transition of power from one party to another.

The system working? The system needed to "work" only because the popular vote and electoral vote were out of sync. No doubts the courts intervened and power transitioned without an uprising. Hurrah, another successful election cycle. However, there was plenty of tummult and disorder as the entire nation waited on an agonizing recount process, and then a round of court appeals. Plenty of people were left extremely bitter and frustrated by the whole thing.

If the election had simply been popular vote, none of that happens. There is no recount, there are no courts. Gore wins by half a million votes and we know who the president is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 04:21:53 pm
Curt, Dave (you guys may have missed my earlier post) or anyone else have thoughts on the way the current system effectively disenfranchises millions?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

just kidding

Our Constitution disenfranchised many in its history: black people, women, people 18 to 21.  It still disenfranchises children.  Many 13 year olds can vote more intelligently than Otto.  (Okay, that was a lousy dig.) 

Consider this.  Hurricane Sandy has devastated New Jersey, New York, much of the rest of New England.  Those state are very unlikely to fall out of the Democratic column tomorrow.  The Electoral College vote won't be impacted much.  But what about popular vote?  You really think people without power in their homes, gas for their cars, and food...or a roof over their heads are worried about voting?  I'm sure Obama's popular vote will be considerably less...Romney's too.  But how will that affect the national totals.   What if there is a massive snowstorm in Minnesota and Michigan tomorrow, topped by an 8.0 earthquake in California?  If we're running a popular vote, that is going to seriously cut into Obama's totals, perhaps, what, disenfranchising millions?

But here's the killer, as discussed on PBS yesterday morning: to change the Constitution of the United states, it take 2/3 of the states to ratify.  Right off the bat you will have at least 50% opposed because they will feel threatened.   The alternative is to do what Nebraska and Maine already do, apportion the vote along Congressional lines.  That doesn't need an Amendment.

We are a Republic made up of 50 sovereign "countries."  The Electoral College, no matter how many it disenfranchises, protects the rights of the citizens of both states and nation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 04:26:01 pm
"A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states got very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.[6] This may mean that swing state issues receive more attention while issues important to other states are largely ignored"

There is no way the abolishment of the electoral college leads to more voters being ignored than what we are currently experiencing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 05, 2012, 04:27:50 pm
I'm delighted to live in a non battleground state, and I don't feel the least bit disenfranchised.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 04:30:41 pm
tico, here in Springfield I am grateful that we haven't been bombarded with the national trash.  Again, you're ignoring that it's a Union made up of sovereign states.  If my state is solid Obama, it is my fault if I stay here and get disenfranchised.  I can move back to North Dakota.  Or Nebraska.

I just feel strongly that if a half dozen cities can outvote the rest of the country, what's the point of getting involved.  That's real disenfranchisement.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 04:30:49 pm
P2, would you feel differently if your voting preferences were different than the majority?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 04:31:01 pm
I'm delighted to live in a non battleground state, and I don't feel the least bit disenfranchised.

Amen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 04:32:04 pm
"I just feel strongly that if a half dozen cities can outvote the rest of the country, what's the point of getting involved."

That has a statistically significant chance of happening this election cycle precisely because of the electoral college.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 04:33:54 pm
"If my state is solid Obama, it is my fault if I stay here and get disenfranchised.  I can move back to North Dakota.  Or Nebraska."

By the same logic, if your state is so tiny that without the electoral college your votes would go ignored, it is your fault.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 04:39:46 pm
"Consider this.  Hurricane Sandy has devastated New Jersey, New York, much of the rest of New England.  Those state are very unlikely to fall out of the Democratic column tomorrow.  The Electoral College vote won't be impacted much.  But what about popular vote?  You really think people without power in their homes, gas for their cars, and food...or a roof over their heads are worried about voting?  I'm sure Obama's popular vote will be considerably less...Romney's too.  But how will that affect the national totals.   What if there is a massive snowstorm in Minnesota and Michigan tomorrow, topped by an 8.0 earthquake in California?  If we're running a popular vote, that is going to seriously cut into Obama's totals, perhaps, what, disenfranchising millions?"

I'd rather a random act of God disenfranchise than a systematic act of government.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 04:50:50 pm
And if the next time it disenfranchises the other color states?

What you are saying, tico, is that you no longer believe the states have any rights at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 05, 2012, 04:51:54 pm
Tico, my vote for President doesn't mean any more (or less) living in California than it would living in a solid red state.  I'm OK with that. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 04:54:55 pm
As witnessed in 2004, the electoral college doesn't necessarily limit "tummult and disorder."

It has for more than 220 years, with one notable exception in 1860-1861, helped bring about the peaceful transition of power.

That is a very good record, and one which we may not have seen if the outcome had simply been decided by popular vote, with the outcome determined immediately on the votes being counted.  The electoral college helps create a cooling off process, and a uniting process.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 04:57:24 pm
I wonder how much longer it will be before enough states sign up for this to go into effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

That's an interesting approach, constitutional, and still satisfying many of the goals of the original system.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 04:58:47 pm
If that's true, Bronco Bamma is melba.

I"ve been telling folks that since early February....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 05:01:54 pm
If the election had simply been popular vote, none of that happens. There is no recount, there are no courts. Gore wins by half a million votes and we know who the president is.

Who says there is no recount?

And why assume that with a different set of rules, the outcome would have been the same?

Gore lost.

If the rules had been changed, the campaigning also would have been different.  There is no reason to believe that Gore would have done any better winning under different rules than we was able to win under the rules which existed at the time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 05:03:08 pm
And if the next time it disenfranchises the other color states?

This isn't about which color states are being disenfranchised. This isn't about Republicans vs Democrats, Romney vs Obama - as I said before, Gore should have won in 2000. Half a million people more on his side matter.

What you are saying, tico, is that you no longer believe the states have any rights at all.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the best form of election is that which takes into account a majority of the individual's votes. The current system is not that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 05:05:15 pm
"The electoral college helps create a cooling off process, and a uniting process."

People were not united after the 2000 election. The only reason they needed cooling off in the first place was the fact that half a million people were told their votes didn't matter. That we moved through that election without incident is more a testament to the American people than the American government, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 05:15:13 pm
tico, was there a violent revolution in 2000 that I missed?

It did allow a cooling off process, and the winner take all approach used by most states in the electoral college generally ends up with electoral college votes outcomes which are far more lop-sided than the popular vote outcomes, further helping to unify.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 05:19:45 pm
As to dis-enfranchisement, I like the fact that I am in a state (Georgia) where my vote has no chance of determining who wins the elecotral college votes here.... and I am as a result allowed to very comfortably vote for the candidate (Gary Johnson) who more accurately advocates the positions I support, and in the process I am able to do a better job letting not only the actual winner know what I wanted, but also allowing future candidates to know what they need to do in the future to win my vote.

I actually believe that my vote has a much greater impact that way than it would if I were merely one of 60 million voters who put the winner over the top.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 05, 2012, 05:21:15 pm
Tico - we do not live in a democracy.  We live in a representative republic made up of 50 individual nations.  I do not want to live in a world where New York and California control the entire country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 05:21:34 pm
tico, was there a violent revolution in 2000 that I missed?

Did I suggest one?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 05:23:19 pm
I do not want to live in a world where New York and California control the entire country.

Check your popular vote totals - this is a straw man argument.

And we don't live in individual nations. We live in states.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 05, 2012, 05:25:19 pm
I'll have to agree with tico.  The electoral college is outdated, and the popular vote has corresponded with the electoral vote often enough in history that it's worth eliminating the chaos that ensues the handful of times when the electoral and popular vote haven't agreed. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 05, 2012, 05:28:14 pm
Check your popular vote totals - this is a straw man argument.

And we don't live in individual nations. We live in states.

It is true that we live in a nation of states.  That is my point.

You asked my opinion.  I gave you my opinion.  You are free to have your own opinion.

If we were to carry out your philosophy to it's ultimate conclusion, we would have to eliminate the Senate and go to a one house legislature.  And for that matter, why have any voting legislature at all.  We have the technology to allow everyone in the country vote on every law every time.  Is everyone in the country not disenfranchaised for the next 2 years because none of us get to vote on the laws that are to be enacted?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2012, 06:20:15 pm
You know, Dave, if these two pinko snotnose whippersnappers, tico and JR,  keep this up, we may have to resort to namecalling and mudslinging.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 05, 2012, 06:38:14 pm
I will never call that snot nose brat any names whatsoever.  I am too classy for that.

But if he votes for the wrong guy again, I am going to tell his mommy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 06:48:34 pm
This is a neat site. You can look at the electoral map and make your own predictions. Here is mine: http://www.270towin.com/#.UJhLc_E8Ci0.email

To make your own, you probably need to go here: http://www.270towin.com/

I have Romney winning in a landslide -- 332 Electoral College votes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 05, 2012, 06:51:46 pm
LMMFAO
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 05, 2012, 06:58:49 pm
An interesting article on why so many people feel confident about their candidate's chances this year.  And some of the potential fall-out from that (mis)perception.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/235843/why-both-republicans-and-democrats-are-so-unjustifiably-confident

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 05, 2012, 06:59:52 pm
And to play Jes's game, I'll go with Obama winning with 294 ECVs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 07:27:49 pm
And to play Jes's game, I'll go with Obama winning with 294 ECVs.

Coward.  All you did was pick a total number.  I committed to a prediction on each of the 50 states individually.  And the District of Columbia.

I tell you, making a prediction on the District of Columbia was downright tough.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 07:28:20 pm
Sounds good, Dave

Regarding taking my opinion to its end, I disagree with where it goes. I'm talking about the election process for a single thing, the office of President. I am fully in support of our bicameral legislature and appreciate the checks and balances inherent in it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 07:37:04 pm
Regarding taking my opinion to its end, I disagree with where it goes. I'm talking about the election process for a single thing, the office of President. I am fully in support of our bicameral legislature and appreciate the checks and balances inherent in it. 

If the reason you were urging direct popular vote was concern about disenfranchisement, eliminating the senate would be the logical conclusion.  Voters in California and New York have the same number of senators as those from New Hampshire or North Dakota, effectively disenfranchising voters in California and New York.... leading to the the point dave mentioned.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 05, 2012, 07:44:05 pm
Coward.  All you did was pick a total number.  I committed to a prediction on each of the 50 states individually. 


I'm not a coward, Jes.  Just didn't think everyone here really gave a crap about which states I predicted each way.  (But I'm sure they were all studiously examining your map.)

But since you seem to be interested, of the states most often considered in play, I put FL, NC and CO in Romney's column.  The rest in Obama's.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 05, 2012, 08:27:29 pm
Sounds good, Dave

Regarding taking my opinion to its end, I disagree with where it goes. I'm talking about the election process for a single thing, the office of President. I am fully in support of our bicameral legislature and appreciate the checks and balances inherent in it. 

But that system of checks and balances disenfranchaise the larger states.  Why should the 684,000 people in North Dakota have the same voting power in the Senate as the 37,700,000 people in California.  Are there not 37,016,000 people in California disenfranchaised every time the Senate votes on a law?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 05, 2012, 09:34:34 pm
Obama is up over 90% to win on fivethirtyeight in the latest projections (91.4%, to be exact).  It's not going to be that close.  Obama is going to finish with more than 300 electoral votes...possibly a lot more if Florida goes his way. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 05, 2012, 09:58:06 pm
But that system of checks and balances disenfranchaise the larger states.  Why should the 684,000 people in North Dakota have the same voting power in the Senate as the 37,700,000 people in California.  Are there not 37,016,000 people in California disenfranchaised every time the Senate votes on a law?

Thanks to the existence of the House of Representatives, no. One checks the other. The electoral college does not work nearly as elegantly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 05, 2012, 10:49:08 pm
Obama is up over 90% to win on fivethirtyeight in the latest projections (91.4%, to be exact).  It's not going to be that close.  Obama is going to finish with more than 300 electoral votes...possibly a lot more if Florida goes his way. 

Silver's out there touting the 91% number but conveniently hasn't included Rasmussen's updated polls for Ohio, Virginia, and Florida yet.  Granted it's Rasmussen and it probably doesn't change his odds that much, but at the very least, he shouldn't have Obama projected to win Florida by time he adds that poll.  If he's truly considering house effects in his polls with very Obama leaning polls NBC and CBS only showing Obama up 1 and 2 in Virginia, adding Rasmussen probably should lessen Obama's 82% odds of winning Virginia that he has now, as well.

I kind of have to wonder if he is getting a little ahead of himself and that his support for Obama is starting to show up as things are coming to a close.  I still think he's probably right that Obama is a solid favorite heading into tomorrow, but the last couple of days, he seems to be getting very over the top about it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 05, 2012, 11:25:57 pm
Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) early voting numbers are pretty interesting.  President Obama won the county by 258,542 votes in 2008 and Ohio by 206,830.  Early voting gave him a 187,000 votes.  So far the only numbers out are party voting, President Obama is -17,000 Democrat voters through 11/4 and Gov. Romney is +13,000 on the Republican side.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 05, 2012, 11:37:19 pm
Saw this tweet from a Cook Political Report writer.

Dave Wasserman ‏@Redistrict

OHIO EARLY VOTE: In 2008, Dem counties cast 417,581 more early votes than GOP counties. In 2012, Dem counties cast only 295,510 more.

Dave Wasserman ‏@Redistrict

OHIO EARLY VOTE: Here's our final spreadsheet of Ohio early turnout by county w/ Kerry/Obama percentages: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdFJPNUt4U3F5MkxteTBoS29fSGN1S0E …
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 05, 2012, 11:51:32 pm
Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) early voting numbers are pretty interesting.  President Obama won the county by 258,542 votes in 2008 and Ohio by 206,830.  Early voting gave him a 187,000 votes.  So far the only numbers out are party voting, President Obama is -17,000 Democrat voters through 11/4 and Gov. Romney is +13,000 on the Republican side.

So a net 30K vote lost for Obama, in a state where the early voting period was longer than in 2008 and where the Obama camp aggressively cannibalized election day votes, AND where you are far more likely to have 2008 Democrats switch to R votes for president in 2012 that you were to have 2008 Republican votes switch to D votes for president in 2012.

Looks very good for Romney.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 08:07:57 am
At least after today it's all over.  We'll at least have a couple of days until the 2014 and 2016 campaigns begin.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 09:46:53 am
Wasserman and Silver had an interesting exchange on Twitter last night.  After Wasserman's spreadsheet showed Cuyahoga down -7% in early voting, Silver first was trying to make a case that they might be slow in reporting and that Cuyahoga was actually up +7%.  After Wasserman backed up his -7% number, Silver conceded that he could be right, but he sort of dismissed it because we don't have a lot of history in evaluating changes in early voting patterns but we do have a lot of history of state polling being very reliable.

I think Silver does make a good case for state polling being historically reliable, but I don't think he's adequately addressed critiques about things like state polls possibly oversampling Dems or, as in the case last night, attempting to reconcile early voting patterns to state polling.  We also don't know how people ditching landlines for cell phones has affected polling (Cell phone only people are supposed to be more Democratic leaning, but are some of the polls like CBS or NBC that include cell phones overcompensating for this?).

Seems like someone who's supposed to be an expert on polling and trying to advance statistical analysis of polling would want to try to get more answers for questions like that instead of settling for his fallback position that state polling is almost always reliable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 06, 2012, 10:35:25 am
Has Romney conceded yet?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 06, 2012, 10:39:24 am
I think the reason those early votes are so important is that they are clearly from people who knew who they were voting for.  I talked with two people this morning who said they went into the polls this morning, torn, thinking Obama, and voted Romney.  I find that interesting.  When I asked why, they said, I just didn't think he deserved another 4 years.  Of course, here in Illinois, it won't matter, but when you're ready to pull that lever or make your mark, all the campaign crap, I think, goes down the drain, and you think, who do I really want.  And in four years you can change your mind again.  (For tico) And we're protected by the Electoral College.

If that happens a lot in battleground states, though, it could be an interesting evening.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 06, 2012, 10:48:04 am
Anyone that is undecided at this point has not been paying attention, and is not going to be swayed by facts.  Their vote will purely be  a result of emotion or vague "feelings".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 06, 2012, 10:57:30 am
Not sure I agree with you, Dave.  Talked with a lot of people who were either very dishonest or really apathetic toward both candidates.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 06, 2012, 12:20:20 pm
Took 2 and a half hour to vote today.  I really feel sorry for those poor guys in Chicago that have to vote 4 or 5 times.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 06, 2012, 01:20:20 pm
Electoral college schmollege.

What influential, forward-thinking, land-owning colonist did you select to make your vote for you, Curt? :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 06, 2012, 01:25:27 pm
How disenfranchising is it to have to wait in line for hours to vote?  There must be a way to make the process more efficient for the voter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 01:25:38 pm
What influential, forward-thinking, land-owning colonist did you select to make your vote for you, Curt? :)

Probably DaveP.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 06, 2012, 01:33:11 pm
Electoral college schmollege.

What influential, forward-thinking, land-owning colonist did you select to make your vote for you, Curt? :)

Cotton Mather's great great great granddaughter, Polly Esther
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 06, 2012, 01:51:27 pm
How disenfranchising is it to have to wait in line for hours to vote?  There must be a way to make the process more efficient for the voter.

Slight difference between waiting to vote, and saying that 30,000 votes are more valuable than 500,000.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 06, 2012, 02:25:10 pm
It seems like the problem with waiting is more imminently fixable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 06, 2012, 02:55:23 pm
Maybe, maybe not. It's a different kind of problem, for sure.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 05:40:47 pm
Drudge had a big headline that the exit polls were favoring Obama in Ohio.

CNN, though, said the Ohio exit polls showed Romney was leading on the economy 49%-48% and had Obama approval at 48% and disapproval at 50%. 

Sounds like that's a tossup.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 05:45:34 pm
CNN also just reported that they obtained Romney's last internal poll in Ohio, and it showed him trailing by 5.  That certainly doesn't sound too good for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 06, 2012, 05:51:03 pm
It shouldn't be long until the panic sets in with Republicans and Fox News.  Once Virginia results start coming in, the realization is going to set in pretty quickly that it's not as close as the media is saying.  Obama is on his way to either 303 or 332 electoral votes, depending on which way Florida goes.
Title: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dave23 on November 06, 2012, 05:52:34 pm
It took me longer to walk thru the parking lot (past all the handshakers) than it did once I got inside.

15 minutes, tops, and that was with school getting out while I was there (4pm)...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 06:00:05 pm
Well at least in Virginia, the exit poll data has the exact same 39% D, 33% R, 27% I breakdown as in 2008.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 06:17:20 pm
Well check that, CNN.com has 37% D, 33% R, 31% I breakdown in Virginia.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 06:28:35 pm
Ohio exit poll data 39% D, 30% R, 31% I.

51% Obama, 48% Romney
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Scoop on November 06, 2012, 06:36:13 pm
DEWEY WINS!!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 07:46:58 pm
I think Virginia is looking pretty good for Romney so far.  Lots of red so far in Northern Virginia.

Seems like every time CNN takes a look at a county in Florida, Obama is either performing as well or outperforming his 2008 numbers.  Nate Silver says, though, the vote is going exactly the way you'd think a tie race would go in Florida. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 06, 2012, 08:58:31 pm
jes

You smell burnt toast?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 06, 2012, 09:25:23 pm
Todd "Legitimate ****" Akin loses.  Good, one less science denier on the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology.  Too bad we didn't have an alternative to Paul Broun on the ballot here in Georgia so we could purge him too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 06, 2012, 09:27:49 pm
Amen, br.  Unbelievable that those two were both on that committee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 09:36:14 pm
Republicans are going to have to get away from the "no abortion even in cases of ****" position that's becoming more and more prevalent, and pro lifers are going to have to start giving candidates a break on that.  That is a big time losing position for most voters, and you wind up with candidates like Akin and Mourdock making unbelievably dumb statements about ****.

That's another two Senate races the Republicans should have won, but in winnable elections, they wind up nominating the worst candidates they possibly can.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 06, 2012, 09:39:07 pm
Republicans are going to have to get away from the "no abortion even in cases of ****" position that's becoming more and more prevalent, and pro lifers are going to have to start giving candidates a break on that.  That is a big time losing position for most voters, and you wind up with candidates like Akin and Mourdock who can't defend that position without making unbelievably dumb statements about ****.

It was not the position, but the statements from both of them that caused problems, and in Murdock's case it was also his less than graceful explanation of it the next day.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 09:44:47 pm
No it is the position.  Only 15% of people support having no exceptions for **** or incest when it comes to abortion.  Only 15%.  It's one of the absolute biggest losing positions anybody in any political party is taking on.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 09:47:11 pm
I'm starting to wonder if Romney is going to win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote.  Romney still has a 3 point lead in the national vote, but Ohio is just not looking that great.  Florida's also looking like a dicey proposition.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 09:59:15 pm
Colorado looks like it's just gone to Obama.  It may not matter if Romney can win Ohio and Florida or not. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 06, 2012, 10:01:23 pm
Republicans are going to have to get away from the "no abortion even in cases of ****" position that's becoming more and more prevalentes they possibly can.

Republicans are going to have to start moving away from a lot of their social conservative positions if they want to stay relevant.  Silly abortion positions and refusal to acknowledge LGBTQ equality are just unacceptable positions to young/young-ish voters. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:15:28 pm
Republicans are going to have to start moving away from a lot of their social conservative positions if they want to stay relevant.  Silly abortion positions and refusal to acknowledge LGBTQ equality are just unacceptable positions to young/young-ish voters. 

They probably are, but then again, they usually need a coalition of social and fiscal conservatives in order to win.  As Romney "ineloquently" put it with his 47% comment, there are a lot more people who "benefit" from big government than they do small government.  That's where fiscal conservatives need social conservatives to make up the gap. 

The number of people who are socially conservative on issues especially like gay marriage are becoming fewer and fewer, though.  The social conservative part of the coalition is starting to get smaller. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: PRCubFan on November 06, 2012, 10:17:55 pm
Fox News just called the election for Obama.  Shocking that they are the first to do that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 06, 2012, 10:18:41 pm
CNN projects Obama wins.  I'm shocked--SHOCKED--that Nate Silver has a better understanding of math and politics than Jes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:19:47 pm
Everybody's now calling Ohio for Obama, and he's now projected to be re-elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: PRCubFan on November 06, 2012, 10:21:02 pm
Will be interesting to see who wins the popular vote.  I imagine Obama will still win that once California is in the books. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:21:44 pm
CNN projects Obama wins.  I'm shocked--SHOCKED--that Nate Silver has a better understanding of math and politics than Jes.

Yeah this is definitely a feather in the hat for Silver, who said all along you can't re-adjust or "unskew" the state polls for what you think the turnout is going to be. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 06, 2012, 10:23:42 pm
Congratulations to President Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:29:20 pm
I just hope the government can settle on a plan to bring us back to fiscal responsibility.  That's the #1 thing that everyone in Washington needs to focus on, and it's going to require some give and take from everyone. 

Unfortunately it does show how dumb we are as a country that we're sending back pretty much the exact same group of clowns that haven't been able to do anything to address it the last 2-4 years, but hopefully now that Obama doesn't have to worry about running for re-election anymore and the Republicans don't have to worry about defeating him four years from now, the congress and the president can agree on something to bring us back to fiscal responsibility in the future.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 06, 2012, 10:31:36 pm
Silver was calling for Ohio for Obama by 1-2%, his winning vote total if it holds is going to be 10,000 votes or less.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:33:12 pm
Seriously, one of the truly ironic things about this election is that everyone is dissatisfied about how government is functioning, and yet we pretty much re-elected everyone who's responsible for the dysfunctional government we have.  Only in America.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 06, 2012, 10:34:55 pm
Should've nominated Jon Huntsman.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 06, 2012, 10:36:26 pm
Hopefully both sides will work together, but it won't happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:41:04 pm
Should've nominated Jon Huntsman.

I doubt it would have made a difference.  I like Huntsman, but beating an incumbent is a tough thing to do in the first place and Huntsman would either have alienated a lot of the Republican base or had to take on a lot of the same positions Romney has had to take. 

Really, Romney ran about as good of a race as he possibly could under the circumstances.  I really can't think of any Republican who would have done any better.  It's just tough running against an incumbent unless there are special circumstances or the incumbent is deeply unpopular, neither of which was the case in this election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 06, 2012, 10:44:18 pm
Huntsman made Romney look like a human.  Ohio is down to 991 votes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:44:55 pm
Huntsman made Romney look like a human.  Ohio is down to 991 votes.

2012 Ohio = 2000 Florida?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:45:47 pm
Ohio still doesn't matter that much, though.  Even if Romney wins Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he still needed to pick up one more battleground in addition to those, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:50:35 pm
Actually Romney now has more votes in Ohio than Obama.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 06, 2012, 10:51:53 pm
Actually br, I think one thing you said a while back, probably the healthiest thing for the Republican party would have been to nominate someone like Santorum, Bachmann, or Cain and have them get blown out.  That might have reassessed a lot of their no-compromise, "let trillion dollar deficits continue unless you agree to our ideal solution", "no exception for **** or incest" type positions.

Republicans are probably going to go into 2016 thinking the reason why they lost this election was because Romney wasn't conservative enough.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 06, 2012, 10:53:53 pm
Republicans are probably going to go into 2016 thinking the reason why they lost this election was because Romney wasn't conservative enough.

I said the exact same thing to an Obama voting co-worker earlier today.  They're going to nominate a social conservative in 4 years, and it's going to be a cakewalk for whoever the Democrats nominate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on November 06, 2012, 11:12:28 pm
Republicans are going to have to start moving away from a lot of their social conservative positions if they want to stay relevant.  Silly abortion positions and refusal to acknowledge LGBTQ equality are just unacceptable positions to young/young-ish voters. 

Yes...saving the life of a child is so silly
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 06, 2012, 11:44:38 pm
Sup guys.

It's me, Agent Cooper.

Poor jes
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on November 07, 2012, 12:01:53 am
As an avid Obama supporter and unapologetic liberal, I am not interested in gloating tonight. Because Nate Silver's model was rock solid and it showed the overwhelming probability of this outcome for a long time.

But, I do hope that among many things that come out of this electoral season is a diminishing belief in asshat pundits and an acceptance of smart guys like Nate Silver. He is kind of a dork. But he's a smart guy who kicked the collective asses of those who tried to diminish his work. All hail our new geeky smart overlords.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 07, 2012, 12:15:14 am
President Obama won and Nate was right.  There isn't much to gloat about though, it was a 50/50 election with the Republicans still in control of the House.  It is going to be nothing more than kicking the can down the road for 4 years.  President Obama is going to have to channel Bill Clinton and I don't think he has that in him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Phill23 on November 07, 2012, 12:29:46 am
jes

You smell burnt toast?

ROFLMFAO!!!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 07, 2012, 12:39:40 am
Quote
It is going to be nothing more than kicking the can down the road for 4 years.

That to me is the most depressing thing about this election.  There's enough I agree with Obama on where I'm not all that torn up that he himself won.  My days of getting too torn up over who wins and who loses any particular election are pretty much over.

I'm just disheartened that we're sending back pretty much the same group of politicians that haven't done anything to fix this country's problems, and we're rewarding the same group of ideologues, political hacks, "true progressives", "true conservatives" that have just been totally irresponsible governing this country for a very long time now.  Same President, same Senate, and same House.

Hopefully now that Obama doesn't have to worry about being re-elected and the Republicans don't have to worry about trying to beat him in 2016, they can all actually get down to governing instead of jockeying for position in the next election and trying to appease the Rush Limbaugh's, Daily Kos's, MSNBC commentators and Fox News commentators out there. 

I seriously doubt that's going to happen, though.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 07, 2012, 12:42:14 am
If you think that the republics in the House can just kick the can down the road for two years until the 2014 election your dilusional. Do you really think obstruction and do nothing will continue to work?

Good luck.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 07, 2012, 01:04:55 am
It's almost frightening how accurate Nate's predictions are turning out to be.  He was just about on the money on the national vote, and is he's going to come close to running the table at the state level.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 07, 2012, 01:07:08 am
Romney gave a nice concession speech.  I think that if he had been able to connect that well with everyday people during the campaign, he would have won.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: shasson on November 07, 2012, 01:16:09 am
Nate got them all right. And Obama's speech was a lot like the speech which first brought him to prominence. If I spelled that right. (and JR, I agree with you about the status quo and those concerns, but do hope everyone decides to at least spend a year working on policy, not politics). christ, I've got to get to bed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 07, 2012, 05:48:35 am
Silver's model may have to be tweaked because it worked too well.  He had enough states in the 70%-90% range that statistically, he should've missed one or two.  But he got them all.  He may have to figure out a way for his model to express a greater level of confidence in his projections.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 07, 2012, 08:38:50 am
JR, the branches may have the same party control, but the dynamic is way different now, now that the 2nd term that they tried so hard to prevent through gridlock is now reality.  And coming up right away, this "fiscal cliff" situation gives the (D)s so much more leverage than they've had. Meanwhile, the (R)s got rebuked so hard there's bound to be a lot of disarray within the party. I just don't see them being quite as united in obstructionism as before, and Obama is going to be a lot more ruthless.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2012, 08:47:44 am
Yes...saving the life of a child is so silly

Those opposing abortion need to frame the issue differently.

They need to focus the question where it logically and rhetorically belongs -- when does human life begin?

There are very few abortion advocates who will openly embrace the idea that regardless when life begins, a woman should be allowed to abort until the child is born, and as soon as you get the focus on when life begins, it is implicit in the very question that legal protection should be afforded the unborn as soon as that unborn child is living.  And as soon as you focus the question on that point you will fragment abortion supporters, further unite abortion opponents, and moot such questions as whether abortion should be allowed in the case of **** or incest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 07, 2012, 08:48:29 am
I don't think anything will change at all.  There is some good natured affability right now that will decline into bickering again.  There will be more challenges to Obamacare, some of which may be partially successful.  There may be some tweaks to our tax laws and to healthcare that will be hailed as major concessions and compromise, but they are just common sense moves that were inevitable.  I agree with some of the pundits that the Republicans may very well have taken the Senate if they hadn't insisted on running so many wacky candidates.  It isn't just red and blue states that are fascinating to look at, it's red and blue counties.  We are really pulling apart rural from urban...I find it interesting that few politicians address that in a meaningful way.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2012, 08:51:30 am
Do you really think obstruction and do nothing will continue to work?

Depends on what you consider to be working.  If it is preventing harmful, counterproductive policies from being implemented, I would say obstruction can work just fine.

But assuming for the sake of argument that the Republicans were to absolutely rubber-stamp whatever policies Obama wanted to present, set out some concrete measures you would expect him to pass -- we heard very few of them during the campaign.

Lay out the legislative agenda you would hope to see passed if Obama were able to simply wave a wand and make it happen -- not goals, but concrete policies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 07, 2012, 09:13:39 am
Silver's model may have to be tweaked because it worked too well.  He had enough states in the 70%-90% range that statistically, he should've missed one or two.  But he got them all.  He may have to figure out a way for his model to express a greater level of confidence in his projections.

That is a good point.  I imagine after the model working so well that Silver's not only going have a lot more confidence in it statistically but will defend it a lot more strongly against partisans and critics who obviously don't read his blog that much. 

Looking back on it, the one thing I wish he had done differently was make a lot stronger case to refute his critics because honestly by the end of it, I was starting to think his critics were making some good points about him not looking too critically into the state polling and possibly letting his political bias get in the way.  If you read his blog regularly, you could piece together what his arguments were in response to some of the criticisms, but he never did make one big "you guys can go stick it" defense of his work.  It may have just been because he wasn't 100% sure how things were going to pan out himself, but he'll probably be even more confident in his model now going forward.

Of course, now that he's been vindicated, it's probably best for him to let the results speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2012, 10:10:09 am
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/21262_544814205535265_1588919122_n.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 07, 2012, 11:23:06 am
Wall Street is excited about the election results.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 07, 2012, 11:23:49 am
LOL  Purple, P2, purple.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 07, 2012, 12:28:54 pm
If Romney could have run as the guy he probably is instead of the candidate he had to be to survive the Republican primaries he probably would have beaten Obama.  It's pretty clear that the majority of people do not want an extremist (of either variety), but in the primaries they were falling all over each other over who was the most conservative.  Hell of a way to run a railroad.

Yes, we are sending most of the same clowns back, but at least now there won't be a "obstruct Obama so that he doesn't get a second term" undercurrent to everything that happens.  There should be a mandate for compromise.  That's the loud message people seem to be talking about, at least.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 07, 2012, 12:56:25 pm
Actually br, I think one thing you said a while back, probably the healthiest thing for the Republican party would have been to nominate someone like Santorum, Bachmann, or Cain and have them get blown out.  That might have reassessed a lot of their no-compromise, "let trillion dollar deficits continue unless you agree to our ideal solution", "no exception for **** or incest" type positions.

Republicans are probably going to go into 2016 thinking the reason why they lost this election was because Romney wasn't conservative enough.

When I first read this, along with comments by br and DMF, I found myself agreeing, but the more I thought about it, I'm not so sure.  I think whether a guy is ultra-conservative or moderate doesn't matter as much as to whether he connects with people.  Reagan is probably the most right President since WWII, but many people were attracted to him.

Not trying to insult Romney supporters, but I don't think people were really drawn to him.   Ron Paul seems to attract people.  My son was bitterly disappointed that Paul didn't run...that would have lost Obama a vote.  Christie?  I don't know.  Rubio?  Thielen?  I don't know enough about these guys, but I'm not so sure that everyone who voted for Obama really buys into all of his agenda, but Obama himself people say, "I'd like to be his friend."  He attracts people.  The Republicans need to find another Reagan or a Clinton or a Kennedy or...yes...an Obama that people are attracted to.  Issues will take care of themselves.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 07, 2012, 12:58:25 pm
It is a loud message with every election.  The problem is that it is going to require something on taxes from the Republicans and entitlement reform from the Democrats.  Both bases will prevent that from happening.  Nothing gets accomplished and the printing presses move at a faster pace.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2012, 12:58:49 pm
at least now there won't be a "obstruct Obama so that he doesn't get a second term" undercurrent to everything that happens.  There should be a mandate for compromise.  That's the loud message people seem to be talking about, at least.

The obstruction was not so Obama would not get a second term, but so he could not put bad policy into law, and nearly every Republican who opposed Obama during his first term was returned to office, which would seem to be a rather loud message that those they represent want them to continue doing that.  By your reasoning it would appear that the roughly 47%+ of the electorate overall (those voting for Romney) also wanted the same thing... so you seem to be hearing a loud message which does not appear to be there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 07, 2012, 01:00:39 pm
Charisma is an underappreciated component of successful leadership as well as electoral success.  Reagan had it, Clinton had it, and Obama has it.  If Romney has it, it never really came across.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 07, 2012, 01:02:45 pm
What constitutes bad policy as not so much a matter of fact than of opinion.  Kind of like predicting the winner of an election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 07, 2012, 01:06:44 pm
True.  National elections have become more of an MTV popularity poll game show giveaway than an election of those fit for office, or based upon policies or principles.  Anyone charismatic and willing to promise people stuff will be the odds on favorite to win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 07, 2012, 03:35:31 pm
I thought this was a pretty good column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?hp&_r=0
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 07, 2012, 10:08:22 pm
Seriously, one of the truly ironic things about this election is that everyone is dissatisfied about how government is functioning, and yet we pretty much re-elected everyone who's responsible for the dysfunctional government we have.  Only in America.

Yeah, and it only cost 6 billion dollars in campaign funds. What a deal!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 08, 2012, 11:01:56 am
Charisma is an underappreciated component of successful leadership as well as electoral success.  Reagan had it, Clinton had it, and Obama has it.  If Romney has it, it never really came across.

Couldn't agree more, P2.  I got to shake Obama's hand after one of the rallies in CO, and the guy just emanates charisma and likeability.  (As a person, regardless of his politics.)  I think George W. had it, too, at least in most settings. 

Certainly not to the degree of the caricature painted of him, but I do think Mitt came across as stiff and robotic, and that made it hard for him to attract people.  Not that charisma necessarily should be such a big component in who we elect, but it just is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2012, 11:16:00 am
Di!  I said that too!  Damb P2 gets all the credit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2012, 11:36:48 am
As well he should.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 08, 2012, 11:38:44 am
When I first read this, along with comments by br and DMF, I found myself agreeing, but the more I thought about it, I'm not so sure.  I think whether a guy is ultra-conservative or moderate doesn't matter as much as to whether he connects with people.  Reagan is probably the most right President since WWII, but many people were attracted to him.

Not trying to insult Romney supporters, but I don't think people were really drawn to him.   Ron Paul seems to attract people.  My son was bitterly disappointed that Paul didn't run...that would have lost Obama a vote.  Christie?  I don't know.  Rubio?  Thielen?  I don't know enough about these guys, but I'm not so sure that everyone who voted for Obama really buys into all of his agenda, but Obama himself people say, "I'd like to be his friend."  He attracts people.  The Republicans need to find another Reagan or a Clinton or a Kennedy or...yes...an Obama that people are attracted to.  Issues will take care of themselves.



Couldn't agree more, BigCrybabyCurt.  I got to shake Obama's hand after one of the rallies in CO, and the guy just emanates charisma and likeability.  (As a person, regardless of his politics.)  I think George W. had it, too, at least in most settings. 

Certainly not to the degree of the caricature painted of him, but I do think Mitt came across as stiff and robotic, and that made it hard for him to attract people.  Not that charisma necessarily should be such a big component in who we elect, but it just is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2012, 11:43:09 am
Di, I can't believe you responded to Curt's whining.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2012, 12:00:28 pm
That's BigCrybabyCurt to YOU, P2.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2012, 12:44:39 pm
My bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: brjones on November 08, 2012, 01:34:34 pm
Charles Darwin got 3,829 write-in votes (16%, apparently) in the unopposed race for a House seat in the Athens, GA area against Paul "Evolution, embryology, and the big bang are lies from the pit of hell" Broun.  Not bad for a viral write-in campaign.

http://flagpole.com/news/2012/nov/08/loop/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2012, 01:58:28 pm
More on Broun:

http://flagpole.com/news/2012/oct/05/loop/

I always doubted my parents' explanation of where I came from.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on November 08, 2012, 02:12:34 pm
Don't forget, that guys sits on the House Science committee.  Guys like that are why I can't vote Republican anymore. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2012, 02:18:11 pm
Good grief.  If I held an entire party responsible for a nutcase, I couldn't vote at all anymore.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on November 08, 2012, 02:33:03 pm
Good grief.  If I held an entire party responsible for a nutcase, I couldn't vote at all anymore.

The party put him in a position of leadership on a science committee despite the fact he denies reality.  It tells me a lot about the party and it's not for me.  Here's an interesting and long blog post from Rany Jazayerli, a guy who is pretty prominent in the baseball stats community and probably familiar to many here, about why he's no longer a Republican.  I don't share his experience but I totally agree with him on this, too.

http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2012/11/the-gop-and-me.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2012, 02:56:32 pm
Guys like that are why I can't vote Republican anymore.

And, Cletus, guys like you are why I can't vote atheist anymore.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2012, 03:05:23 pm
Thanks for the link, Cletus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on November 08, 2012, 03:07:58 pm
Don't forget, that guys sits on the House Science committee.  Guys like that are why I can't vote Republican anymore. 

So vote for democrat...just watch out for the guy that thinks the island of Guam is in danger of tipping over if we put too many troops there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2012, 04:01:37 pm
Quote from: Rany Jazayerli
It doesn’t have to be this way. The Muslim community still shares many core values with Republicans, the same core issues that attracted most Muslims to the Republican Party in the first place. Muslims haven’t changed their views on limited government, or the superiority of the traditional nuclear family, or the importance of encouraging entrepreneurship. A Republican Party that focused on its core principles rather than on demonizing a minority as a way to score cheap political points would find support among the American Muslim community again.

I think there are a lot of people who aren't Muslims who also feel that way.  I still believe low taxes, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility (which Republicans haven't been very good at even when they are in power . . . a lot of them could take a cue from Bill Clinton on fiscal responsibility), government having a safety net but not being a nanny state, etc. 

However I also feel people have a right to practice religion freely in this country, unlike Herman Cain, a guy whose anti-Muslim views still haven't been generally denounced and was a sought after endorsement during the Senate primaries by guys like Richard Mourdock and Ted Cruz.   I'm generally pro life and don't believe in abortion on demand, but I also think women shouldn't be forced to carry the child of their rapists either, unlike many of the up and coming Republican stars who are doing everything they can to outflank each other to get the endorsement of social conservative groups.  I've made several gay and lesbian friends since moving to Nashville, two of them having been in a relationship for over 20 years, and I think they ought to have a right to get married and serve in the military if they want.  While military action against Iran or another country may become necessary in the future (hopefully not), I don't want to see us in another unnecessary and costly war, and I pretty much came away from the Republican primaries thinking Santorum and Gingrich would have had us in a war with Iran within two years, whether we really needed to be or not.

That's where Republicans are losing a lot of people, and there are probably plenty of other issues where normally fiscally conservative people who would want to vote Republican are getting turned off, not to mention that even when Republicans do get in power, they often don't prove to be very fiscally responsible either. 

I voted for Mitt Romney, but other than Jon Huntsman, he was really the only Republican in the primaries I would have voted for against Obama.  Gary Johnson would have gotten my vote if most of the others had been nominated, and I probably would have just flat out voted for Obama if Cain, Santorum, or Gingrich had been the nominee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on November 08, 2012, 05:13:12 pm
And, Cletus, guys like you are why I can't vote atheist anymore.

I'm going to have to learn how to live with that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2012, 05:13:39 pm
I'm generally pro life and don't believe in abortion on demand, but I also think women shouldn't be forced to carry the child of their rapists either....


It a woman is carrying her infant child on a balcony when she learns that medical testing has conclusively determined that her husband, who she THOUGHT was the father of the child, could not possibly be the father of her child, meaning the child was fathered by someone who **** her, should she be "forced to carry the child of (her) rapist" off the balcony to safety, or should she be free to simply toss the kid to land on the pavement in the ally several stories below?

How that child came into being would seem to make no difference to the question of whether the child is or is not human life entitled to protection.

And if the unborn child at 3 months or 6 months or 8 and a half months is NOT a human life before being born, then it makes no sense to put any restrictions on the mother's decision to abort at any point, for any reason.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jack Birdbath on November 08, 2012, 05:15:20 pm
So vote for democrat...just watch out for the guy that thinks the island of Guam is in danger of tipping over if we put too many troops there.

I've got no real interest in voting for the Democrats either.  Neither of the major parties got a vote from me this year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2012, 06:04:43 pm
I think many of us consider ourselves ex-Republicans for a variety of reasons.  In some cases we look for reasons to rejoin and don't see any on the horizon.  It's odd about the coalitions that the Democrats are able to build.  Gays and lesbians, for example, have little in common with most of the African-American or Latino communities where such behavior is frowned upon within the culture, yet they bond well within the party.

One of these days, some Republican with some vision will bring things back together.  The reason I believe that as I have heard both parties pronounced dead a number of times.  Both have risen from the dead.

OTOH, there are those who find that they can have Christian faith, conservative politics, and belief in evolution.  Francis Collins comes to mind.  Credited with heading the group that uncovered the human genome and author of the book The Language of God, he fits that.  Interesting read.   As a Christian I hesitated in reading it, but Collins writes well and is highly respected in his field.

Just random thoughts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2012, 06:22:06 pm
I think many of us consider ourselves ex-Republicans for a variety of reasons.  In some cases we look for reasons to rejoin and don't see any on the horizon.  It's odd about the coalitions that the Democrats are able to build.  Gays and lesbians, for example, have little in common with most of the African-American or Latino communities where such behavior is frowned upon within the culture, yet they bond well within the party.


While many Democrats may frown on homosexuality, relatively few loudly condemn it, and loud, self-righteous condemnation is what they normally get from conservatives, particularly from evangelical conservative Republicans.

When one group tolerates you, and another group loudly and almost uniformly condemns you, most people don't have great difficulty in deciding which group to join... even if their views on issues might have more in common with the group they do not join.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2012, 06:52:13 am
Ah, yes, without even taking a deep breath after Tuesday -- http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-heads-iowa_662073.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 09, 2012, 07:57:10 am
The parties by necessity include groups that disagree on some fundamental issues.  Each of us prioritizes what's important, and then makes a judgment about which party or candidate best represents our positions.  The match is always imperfect.  When a party is hostile to something that we view as basic to our humanity, we will virtually always reject that party/candidate no matter how much we might agree with their policy positions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2012, 10:22:39 am
But, Play, many of the Hispanic voters, and some of the black voters, who consider themselves Democrats and who will reliably and consistently vote Democratic, side with the Republican Party or Republican candidates not only on most issues, but on the issues they would self identify as most important to them... but they do not vote Republican because they not feel welcome in the party, and quite often view the party itself as downright hostile to them because of their race or ethnicity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 09, 2012, 10:52:02 am
I agree, Jes.  That was the point I was trying to make.  If I agreed with every policy position of the Democratic Party, but perceived that the Party were anti-Semitic, I would never vote Democratic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2012, 11:13:57 am
While I recognize and understand that, it certainly is not an attitude everyone shares.  I look at the policy positions and the character and judgment of the individual candidates.  I have been an atheist since about 7th grade, and I have voted for and supported many Republicans (as well as many Democrats) since then, and since at least 1980 the Republican Party has been absolutely dominated by evangelicals and has often aggressively gone out of its way to alienate "godless sinners" such as I am.

Whether someone likes me or not has always seemed less important than whether the positions they take are good or bad, or whether they would likely be able to implement those positions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 09, 2012, 11:19:35 am
I agree, Jes.  That was the point I was trying to make.  If I agreed with every policy position of the Democratic Party, but perceived that the Party were anti-Semitic, I would never vote Democratic.

So for you, P2, it's just a matter of Semitics?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 09, 2012, 11:25:10 am
You're learning, Curt.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 09, 2012, 11:28:26 am
I have to say that I don't understand why it's unreasonable to include a modest increase in marginal taxes for the very well off as part of a deficit reduction package that includes spending cuts, cuts in corporate tax rates, and maintenance of the Bush tax cuts for most tax payers.  How would that stunt economic growth?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 09, 2012, 11:32:51 am
I have felt that way the last couple of years, P2, but I bought the "you can't tax the wealthy because they create the jobs" bit for a long time.  Well, it's been 12 years...where are the jobs?  The wealthy who have not re-invested only have themselves to blame for higher taxes.  I still believe most wealthy people will still avoid taxes for the most part.  I feel that eliminating the IRS and going to a straight sales tax is the only way to make the rich pay their fair share.  If they have to pay extra for their toys and cabins and yachts and vacations, etc., that would begin evening things out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 09, 2012, 11:33:47 am
I'm sure Grover Norquist could tell us.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on November 09, 2012, 11:49:24 am
I feel that eliminating the IRS and going to a straight sales tax is the only way to make the rich pay their fair share.  If they have to pay extra for their toys and cabins and yachts and vacations, etc., that would begin evening things out.

Unless they stop buying those things. Wasn't that already tried under Clinton with the "Luxury Tax"? If I remember correctly that caused a steep decline on purchases of things like yachts which only hurt those employed building them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2012, 12:36:37 pm
Unless they stop buying those things. Wasn't that already tried under Clinton with the "Luxury Tax"? If I remember correctly that caused a steep decline on purchases of things like yachts which only hurt those employed building them.

Part of that was because it was a tax only on certain items. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 09, 2012, 12:49:45 pm
You could lower the rates, get rid of deductions and have the rich pay a higher effective rate.  Of course unless you are increasing the dividend/capital gain you won't be touching the Warren Buffet's of the world.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2012, 01:07:51 pm
I have to say that I don't understand why it's unreasonable to include a modest increase in marginal taxes for the very well off as part of a deficit reduction package that includes spending cuts, cuts in corporate tax rates, and maintenance of the Bush tax cuts for most tax payers.  How would that stunt economic growth?

I would have no problem with that as long as the modest tax increases take place one year after the spending cuts take place.  Under Bush 1 we raised taxes with the understanding that there would be 2 dollars of spending cuts for every 1 dollar in tax increases.

We are still waiting for the first spending cut.

In 1986 we granted amnesty to illegal aliens with the understanding that we would stop future illegal aliens coming in to the country.  How did that work out for us?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 09, 2012, 01:21:56 pm
How about initial spending cuts coupled with tax reform of the kind proposed by Boehner with a temporary one year extension of the Bush tax cuts.  With a provision that the Bush tax cuts for the will be terminated for the wealthy only after one year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2012, 01:46:01 pm
I have no problem with that, as long as there is a provision that if spending increases in future years, the Bush tax rates will automatically go back into effect.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 09, 2012, 02:03:04 pm
I guess the problem with future provisions is that no one trusts that they will actually be allowed to take effect.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2012, 02:24:43 pm
And, of course, that is because in the past they were never allowed to take effect.  It has never been a smart policy for republicans to give up something NOW for democratic promises to give up something in the FUTURE.

But I would be perfectly happy to see a law that raised taxes on what you call the rich, and at the same time reduced spending by eliminating specific existing government social programs immediately.

Would that be acceptable to you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2012, 02:26:53 pm
Petraeus just resigned, giving as his reason, that he conducted an extramarital affair at some point in the past.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on November 09, 2012, 03:51:11 pm
Petraeus just resigned, giving as his reason, that he conducted an extramarital affair at some point in the past.

I smell Bengahzi
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 09, 2012, 06:16:12 pm
Your smelling underwear from the hamper.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 09, 2012, 10:50:43 pm
I don't think the income tax rate is as stimulative as the capital gains rate which directly correlates to investment. I would be okay with an increase in the income rate for rich folks if it coincided with a dramatic cut of the capital gains tax.  Historically capital gains cuts have resulted in more revenue for the fed government anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2012, 09:35:54 am
Making the case that Romney lost because of lack of enthusiasm on the part of white voters:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 11, 2012, 10:09:40 am
Historically capital gains cuts have resulted in more revenue for the fed government anyway.

Anything other than your gut to prove this conservative hope?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 11, 2012, 10:24:51 am
A disturbing number of the comments at the end of P2's article are claiming that the Democrats won by fraud (even in all those states run by Republicans), and that the results "don't jibe with reality," - continuing to deny the reality of the pre-election polls.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 11, 2012, 10:33:19 am
House Republicans (at least some) acknowledge the new dynamic and know they're not in position to obstruct as vehemently as before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/us/politics/boehner-tells-house-gop-to-fall-in-line.html?hp
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2012, 10:36:46 am
I hope they don't fall in line.  the Democrats are going to do enough damage without the help of liberal or scared republicans.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Some Guy on November 11, 2012, 10:52:25 am
Conservative Ross Douthat with some refreshing sanity. Says the Republicans' problem fundamentally isn't a matter of packaging their economic message better for the current demographics - the position itself needs to change. Middle class economic concerns are not the same now as they were in the '70s, and the supposedly conservative hispanic electorate is only conservative socially, not economically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-gops-demographic-excuse.html?ref=opinion
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2012, 12:34:14 pm
Douthat gives plenty of reasons why republican policies do not succeed with voters, but gives not a single policy change, other than a few vague suggestions, for solving the problem.  He is correct is saying that Latinos voted democratic because they are economically liberal, rather than in favor of amnesty.  But what economic policies does he think should change, other than higher tax rates for the wealthy?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2012, 12:36:12 pm
Douthat seems to be saying that the economic approaches favored by tea party conservatives will not be accepted by the electorate in the future.  That they will either moderate their economic positions, form a third party, or drag the Republican Party down for years to come. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2012, 01:24:05 pm
Perhaps.  But if the alternative is to vote for republicans that act like democrats, why not vote democratic in the first place?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2012, 02:05:10 pm
Why not just vote your conscience and let the political parties be damned?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2012, 02:19:56 pm
The political parties consistently shoot themselves in their collective big toes. Political parties (and their surragate "news" organizations) are about the perpetuation of power...period. They are certainly not about governing. Presidential elections have become a big, wasteful, idiotic game.  I can't stop thinking about what better uses there are for the $16 billion wasted on the election.

$16 billion if 36 years of PBS. (And Nova is a hell of a lot more entertaining and illuminating).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2012, 02:31:48 pm
The Federal debt is increasing almost $4 billion A DAY.

And these fools are arguing over $444 million A YEAR to PBS?

The other fools actually think "taxing the rich" will solve the problem.

The fact is, I don't believe either side is that stupid.  I just think they think we are.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2012, 02:35:45 pm
If you had voted your conscience in the last election, who would you have voted for?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2012, 02:35:59 pm
The political parties consistently shoot themselves in their collective big toes. Political parties (and their surragate "news" organizations) are about the perpetuation of power...period. They are certainly not about governing. Presidential elections have become a big, wasteful, idiotic game.  I casn't stop thinking about what better uses there are for the $16 billion wasted on the election.

$16 billion if 36 years of PBS. (And Nova is a hell of a lot more entertaining and illuminating).
I have been preaching that for years to my sons.  I really hate seeing some people get so overly emotional about the election that they want to move to Canada or espouse the hatred we've seen toward Bush and Obama...by opposing "parties." 

 I'd love to see a third party that would really be different.  Maybe a Rural Party.  When you look at the voting patterns of every state, even Blue states, the vast majority of the counties and rural areas are red.  Many of the laws which cause problems and concerns of rural folk with their set of values and issues are made by urban people who have a huge disconnect to the people who form their foundation and feed them.  I see that as a huge problem but few agree with me.

Oh, well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2012, 02:38:48 pm
What principles would this third party espouse that are not espoused by one of the two major parties?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2012, 02:39:26 pm
If you had voted your conscience in the last election, who would you have voted for?

The lesser fool.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2012, 02:50:14 pm
What principles would this third party espouse that are not espoused by one of the two major parties?

Not sure.  But from spending time with a lot of rural people, they, too, have no idea how different they've become from their city cousins.  They probably can't coalesce into a party, but they need to become aware of what I am calling a "disconnect.."  Neither is.

Most of your folks who've chosen to become PETA supporters or vegetarians live in our cities.  That's fine; it's their choice.  But when they cause hardships that put farmers out of money or out of work, they are endangering the food supply and imposing their will on their city cousins who think differently and can eventually result in costs that are unreasonable.

In Florida last year, acres and acres of oranges were left unpicked because the growers were denied use of  a pesticide that would guarantee them a good crop; we still had plenty of oranges...most of which came from other countries where the growers could use that pesticide.  It was not rural or agricultural area representatives who passed that legislation.  Is it good that we don't spray that on our oranges, true, but who suffered?  Our growers...who then had no money for purchases or taxes. 

Maybe the Rural Party should be a party of Common Sense.

Nah...that won't work.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2012, 02:56:05 pm
What principles would this third party espouse that are not espoused by one of the two major parties?

What "principles" do the current two parties espouse? Did you watch the Republican primary debates? Exactly what "principles" were they agreeing on? The Obama campaign didn't even have to work to find ways to attack Romney...all they had to do was watch Newt, Michelle, and Rick.

People have principles, organizations have policy, and the organized political parties really only have one perpetual policy..."win at all costs".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2012, 04:22:00 pm
So you feel, for instance, that if there had been a republican president, Senate and house in 2010, they would have instituted Obamacare?   Or would have instituted TARP 1 or TARP 2?  Or substantially reduced the amount of oil permits on public land and offshore US?  Or placed environmental restrictions on coal use the makes coal almost impossible to use economically?  Or passed a law that will automatically reduce military spending as the first of the year.

I am not saying that any or all of the above are good or bad.  Merely asking if you would have them in place under a different administration.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2012, 06:14:01 pm
So you feel, for instance, that if there had been a republican president, Senate and house in 2010, they would have instituted.... instituted TARP?

TARP was proposed by Bush, and passed with strong Republican support, and then signed into law by Bush, so the answer to that one is YES.

One of the things that annoyed me in the election was the degree to which the Republicans allowed Obama and Blill Clinton to blame the economic collapse on bank deregulation by Bush, when it was in fact supported and signed into law by Clinton; they allowed Obama to take credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing troops home, even though it was on a schedule set by Bush; and they allowed Obama to take credit for "saving" GM and Chrysler by the "bold bailout," even though the bailout was proposed by Bush, and signed into law by Bush.... and did not work, with both companies still forced to go into bankruptcy in order to become solvent again..... and all of those points could have been made in a 30 second commercial.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2012, 06:47:03 pm
Douthat gives plenty of reasons why republican policies do not succeed with voters, but gives not a single policy change, other than a few vague suggestions, for solving the problem.  He is correct is saying that Latinos voted democratic because they are economically liberal, rather than in favor of amnesty.  But what economic policies does he think should change, other than higher tax rates for the wealthy?

I disagree with the idea that Latinos are economically liberal.  Most are economic conservatives.  The Republicans lost the Latino vote because of opposition to the Dream Act, opposition to a path to citizenship, calls for English as the official language of the United States, references to a large part of the Latino population in the US as "illegals," support for the Arizona approach, and in general a feeling that Latinos simply were not welcome among Republicans.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2012, 07:20:23 pm
And Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2012, 08:49:18 pm
Historically capital gains cuts have resulted in more revenue for the fed government anyway.

Anything other than your gut to prove this conservative hope?

Anything other than his gut?

Notice the first word in his sentence.  History proves that is what HAS happened.  It does not prove that it would again happen, though it is a pretty good indication of it.

One reason it results in more revenue is that it results in more investment, which generally leads to greater economic growth, which leads to more income and more tax dollars being paid on the increased income.  In other words, it helps expand then entire economic pie, something even the CBO has concluded http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7767/90-cbo-033.pdf  and also something you can see from this graph.

(http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/102212capgains-600x441.jpg)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_successful_clinton_economy.html
September 11, 2010
The successful Clinton economy was based on tax cuts. No, really...
By Jerry Shenk
At the end of this year, America will be looking down both barrels of one of the biggest tax increases in history: the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 rate reductions on income and dividends/capital gains. It's seldom a good time to raise taxes, but the imposition of the old rates during a recession may guarantee a Hooverian result. The country needs further tax reductions and an even larger reduction in spending to stimulate recovery.

Though there is some disagreement about where the Laffer Curve bends, most agree that higher rates can and do reduce tax revenue and that the Curve allows for a point at which further tax rate reductions won't stimulate economic activity and create a corresponding increase in Treasury receipts. The United States hasn't found the latter point yet. Unfortunately, Democrats controlling Washington are unwilling to seek it.

Reasonable people of all political persuasions will acknowledge that tax cuts worked for Democratic President John Kennedy and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan oversaw significant reductions of confiscatory tax rates on high earners and taxpayers generally. In both cases, records show that Treasury revenues increased with the rate of investment of the freed assets.

Often overlooked in the debate over tax policy is the success of the Clinton-era tax reductions -- reductions that, though fairly recent, are unknown to most Americans. That may be no accident.

The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.

The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

The Clinton tax policies of the early '90s were based on rate increases and luck -- the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, one need only look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result.

The new leadership in Washington and those who support them would allow this tax cut to expire to "generate revenue" for the federal government. Based on data from Congress's own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire.

For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would "cost" the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.

Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts.

In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses.

Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years.

How could the CBO and Democrats have gotten it so wrong?

It's very simple. Forecasts are guesses. When rates change in either direction, the CBO does linear forecasts on tax revenues, never estimating the stimulation or retardation of economic activity resulting from the changes. It is all policy permits them to do. Accordingly, CBO forecasts for rate changes are always wrong. CBO results, on the other hand, are facts -- the same facts that appear in reports from the OMB and the IRS. Four years of factual history on the 2003 tax rate reduction on capital gains and dividends in the CBO's own report showed that contrary to their expectation of revenue declines, the Treasury actually received record revenues from this class of tax obligation. For that matter, including the 2001 rate reductions on income, Treasury revenues set records through 2007, at that point exceeding original forecasts by roughly twice the cost of the two wars in which America was engaged. The CBO was wrong about that as well.

Politicians and their enablers who embrace old, wrong guesses and ignore newer facts are either a little stupid, or they think we are.

All of America's current deficits are the result of spending by both parties above the baseline, including spending on the costs of war, homeland security, and natural disaster. Despite those circumstances, at the rates of economic growth through 2007 and with simple spending restraint, the Bush-era 2001 and 2003 tax rate reductions should have yielded a surplus by 2009 with no increase in taxes.

Unfortunately, federal expenditures have been setting records, too, and are increasing drastically. A typical Congress has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This Congress is no exception, except that its members are spending at exceptional rates and have no will to stop.

Millions of Americans fell off the tax rolls following the 2001 rate reductions on income. Today, the top 1% of earners pays more taxes than the bottom 95%. Who really believes that taxing this top group even more is going to pay everyone's tab for the ambitious and irresponsible spending objectives of the Democrats in Washington?

Unless clearer heads prevail, we will all pay. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2012, 10:19:29 pm
And Obama is toast.

Obama is toast.

True enough that he won re-election, but he is done.  He is toast.  There is nothing more he will accomplish, though there are things he will try, and certainly there is more that he will muck up.


The people have spoken … and they must be punished
Marc Thiessen | November 7, 2012, 3:19 pm   

After he was defeated for re-election in 1989, New York Mayor Ed Koch was asked if he would ever run for office again.  “No,” Koch replied.  “The people have spoken … and they must be punished.”

Well, it’s November 2012, and the people have spoken.  Here’s how they will be punished.

Exit polls show that by a margin of 52-43, Americans want less government, not more. By a margin of 63-33 they do not want to raise taxes to balance the budget.  And by a margin of 49-45, they want Obamacare either partially or entirely repealed.  None of those wishes will be honored.  Instead:

1.    Obamacare will now become a permanent feature of the American political landscape.  It will never be repealed.

2.    The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama’s first four years will become the new floor, as America sets new records for fiscal profligacy and debt.

3.    Job creators will face massive tax increases, and more Americans will come off the tax rolls—resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits.

4.    Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow.

5.    Four lost years in dealing with the entitlement crisis will become eight—digging us into a hole from which we may not be able to emerge.

6.    Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands.

7.    He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business.

8.    His administration’s assault on religious freedom will go on and expand to new areas.

9.    The Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower.

10.    Obama will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices, possibly replacing conservatives on the high court — ending the Roberts court in all but name for a generation.

And that’s only the beginning. Welcome to Obama’s second term.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Phill23 on November 12, 2012, 11:39:48 am
Obama is toast.

True enough that he won re-election, but he is done.  He is toast.

Totally delusional as always.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 12, 2012, 12:06:00 pm
And Romney's gonna win in a landslide, Phil! 

(But just to clarify, he meant in a game of Pinochle against his grandchildren, not the election.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Phill23 on November 12, 2012, 12:15:55 pm
TRIPLE LOL!!!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on November 12, 2012, 12:28:21 pm
LOL :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 12, 2012, 12:39:32 pm
The way I see it is that the country wants the liberal agenda so the Republicans should give it to them.  Rubber stamp whatever Obama wants and we'll have a big experiment to see if it works.  For myself, I see CA, IL, Detroit, Greece, Italy and France and I believe I already know how it will turn out but the country wanted this so they should get it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 12, 2012, 12:39:59 pm
Don't be too hard on Jes.  He makes so many grand pronouncements and predictions, it's not really fair to harp on the rare instance where he's wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 12, 2012, 12:44:44 pm
Robb, if the Repubs had the courage of their convictions, that's exactly what they would do.  Let the electorate see how misguided the Dems' agenda is, and let the Dems be punished down the road at the polls.  But the Republican leaders are afraid that the public just might like what happens, and then where would they be?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 13, 2012, 04:37:40 pm
I have no doubt the public would like it.  Don't worry about the long term consequences, let's have a one payer medical system that insures all with the government picking up the tab.  Deficit?  Don't worry about it, just print more dollars.  Force car companies to go electric and electric companies to get rid of coal altogether.  Skyrocketing energy prices?  Don't worry about it, just give people a rebate to offset the increases.  More deficit?   Don't worry about it, just print more dollars.  Gay marriage and abortions should be forced on all the states, make all illegals citizens.  Erosion of the family leading to more poverty?  Don't worry about it.  That's what food stamps and welfare are for.  Now what do you do when the money runs out and people riot in the streets because of forced austerity? What do you do when an entire generation grows up dependent on the government and not able to take care of themselves?  Don't worry about it.  The Democrats will have a program to fix it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 13, 2012, 04:53:52 pm
Don't worry about the long term consequences, let's have a one payer medical system that insures all with the government picking up the tab.

See Canada and all that long term damage that the people of Canada don't.

Deficit?  Don't worry about it, just print more dollars.

See Europe because republic style auserty works so much better.

Force car companies to go electric and electric companies to get rid of coal altogether.

And the long term damage from cleaner air bothers republics how?

Gay marriage and abortions should be forced on all the states, make all illegals citizens.  Erosion of the family leading to more poverty?

Is this one of those republic lies that you guys say to each other in the vacuum? Has gay marriage caused the distruction of any of the states which it is currently legal?

The Democrats will have a program to fix it.

This happens after republics have been in power too long.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robb on November 13, 2012, 05:59:22 pm
Yes Canada has the model healthcare system.  Also see England and their wonderful one payer system. I don't even know what you are trying to say in regards to printing dollars.  See what happens with all electric vehicles and energy prices if we can't use coal or oil to create electricity.  Gay marriage causes a moral decay but in the secular society we now live in I don't expect many to recognize it.  The rest of your answers are incoherent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2012, 06:02:23 pm
You seem to be saying that SOME of Oddo's answers ARE coherent.  Please reread them.

But now that Republicans are in charge of all facets of the Wisconsin government, things should get better for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2012, 08:28:56 pm
Don't be too hard on Jes.  He makes so many grand pronouncements and predictions, it's not really fair to harp on the rare instance where he's wrong.

Romney winning in 2012 in a landslide, and Hee Seop Choi making the Hall of Fame.

Hey, so I didn't quite hit the bullseye with either of those....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2012, 08:30:14 pm
Robb, if the Repubs had the courage of their convictions, that's exactly what they would do.  Let the electorate see how misguided the Dems' agenda is, and let the Dems be punished down the road at the polls.  But the Republican leaders are afraid that the public just might like what happens, and then where would they be?

Play that is nonsense.  There is no reason to even pick it apart.  It is simply nonsense.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 13, 2012, 08:30:51 pm
My prediction - we will never again see a Republican elected President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2012, 08:34:29 pm
The rest of your answers are incoherent.

Actually, while I don't agree with his positions, all of otto's comments in that post were coherent, once you get past his code words..... and that might be a first for otto.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 14, 2012, 10:43:18 pm
My prediction - we will never again see a Republican elected President.

Have faith, the Democrats are still the all-time leaders in self-inflicted foot shootings.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 14, 2012, 11:32:46 pm
My prediction - we will never again see a Republican elected President.

Well their off to a good start by having old white cranky mccain lead the opposition to Suzanne Rice.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 15, 2012, 07:05:53 am
They said the Democrats were dead after Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Clinton's Lewinski mess.  The Republicans were dead after Nixon, Bush I, and Bush II.  I do think the Republicans will have a tougher time redefining themselves than the Democrats ever do.  We may see a three party system emerge within the next 30 years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Robert L on November 15, 2012, 11:39:16 am
with 270 Electoral votes required to become president a third party would split  up the vote to much      It would make it almost impossible to become president 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 15, 2012, 12:26:58 pm
Perot got a lot of votes, Clinton still made it.

Frankly, if nobody got a majority, we would have what other countries have, the necessity to make odd bedfellows and alliances to put our guy in office, often insuring a minority's opinion and its cause to be put forward.  Coalitions work elsewhere.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 15, 2012, 12:31:25 pm
Frankly if there is a 3rd party it likely comes from an off shoot of the Republican party on either the fiscal or social issues and the Democrats would have a very simple time winning elections.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 15, 2012, 12:36:46 pm
Isn't that how the Republican party was born?  As an offshoot?  What are we going to do, ban 3rd parties?  It's part of the political system.  I think there are a lot of people with Republican values in the Democratic Party and among Independents that shunning the ultra-right and Tea Partiers could have considerable size, formidable enough to eventually present a sound candidate.  You take 5 per cent of Democrats...Blue Dogs and the like...75 of current Republicans...and 40 per cent of Independents...that could be 45 per cent of the electorate, only needing another 5 per cent or so to elect somebody.  Might already have enough.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 15, 2012, 03:11:19 pm
What Curt said.  I hate the political parties.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 15, 2012, 05:06:48 pm
.... shunning the ultra-right and Tea Partiers....

Just what is it about the Tea Party which would have Republicans shun it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on November 15, 2012, 11:05:56 pm
Nothing about the facts of the tea party should cause the Republicans to shun it. The only reason would be that media wrongly painted them with the racist brush.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 16, 2012, 11:45:15 am
Yeah, that's the only reason...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 16, 2012, 11:47:02 am
Di, life is about competition.  You're either a winner or a loser.  Stop whining.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 16, 2012, 11:58:32 am
Uh oh.  I'm a Cubs fan...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 16, 2012, 02:32:33 pm
Yeah, that's the only reason...


Di, if you believe there is more than that, I repeat my question for you: Just what is it about the Tea Party which would have Republicans shun it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 16, 2012, 03:10:48 pm
Keys, the Republicans could have won two or three more Senate seats had the Tea Party not thrown its support in the nomination process to unelectable fruitcakes.  Missouri and Indiana come to mind.  And two years ago, the Republicans lost another couple of winnable seats but Tea Party supported screwballs won the nominations...and lost.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 16, 2012, 04:07:08 pm
Bull.

The guy in Missouri won NOT because of Tea Party support, but because there was no real primary race for Democrats, and the Democratic candidate for Senate got Democrats to throw THEIR support behind the Republican she stood the best chance of winning.

The Tea Party was a non-factor.

And in Indiana, it also was not Tea Party support which got the nomination but instead simply a strong primary campaign against an incumbent Hoosiers saw as completely out of touch with them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 16, 2012, 04:45:46 pm
jesbart

Both akin and mourdouh were teabilly candidates.

FYI
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on November 16, 2012, 06:22:14 pm
Otto...both of them lost because of stupid comments about **** and abortion. Those are not Tea Party issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 16, 2012, 06:51:12 pm
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/reagan-tea-party-candidates/2012/11/16/id/464486
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on November 16, 2012, 07:07:10 pm
Sorry keysbart

Already added them to the heep of teabillies which includes allen west and joe walsh with alittle mia love.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 16, 2012, 08:02:00 pm
Curt is right.  Republicans would have two more senators if they had just had enough sense to nominate guys that would act like Democrats.

After all, the goal is for the right PARTY to win, not the right policies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 16, 2012, 08:04:33 pm
There has to be some threshold level of sanity in the nomination process.  Even for Republicans.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 16, 2012, 08:09:02 pm
Curt is right.  Republicans would have two more senators if they had just had enough sense to nominate guys that would act like Democrats.

After all, the goal is for the right PARTY to win, not the right policies.

You got the first three words right.

Dave, the idea is to find someone with the right policies and approach who is ELECTABLE.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on November 16, 2012, 08:12:14 pm
I agree.  But anyone espousing those policies will be immediately pronounced unelectable by the press and half the republican party.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 17, 2012, 11:40:19 am
Then I guess I need a definition of what you think those policies are, because as Michael Reagan says, the core policies should be attractive not unelectable.  At this point, perhaps, potential candidates need to be aware that they may temporarily turn off a portion of the party and do what's right. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 17, 2012, 09:34:59 pm
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/reagan-tea-party-candidates/2012/11/16/id/464486

Michael Reagan seems to be missing the fact that the social issues he was addressing area not Tea Party issues at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 05, 2012, 07:35:41 pm
Not sure where this fits, but I thought it was an excellent rebuttal to Costas:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/kansas-city-chiefs-jovan-belcher-suicide-murder-no-reason-to-take-away-rights-120512
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 22, 2012, 09:26:39 am
(http://media.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2012/12/21/121222_Mistletoe_t618.jpg?ba5b5b122dd3d37cc13d83e92a6a0ec0d5bfa32a)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 22, 2012, 09:29:00 am
It's pretty fair to say, we're getting the government we deserve right now. 

$2 billion in the last election, and we elected the same set of clowns who are still debating the budget, gun control, etc. in the same petty way as before.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 22, 2012, 09:31:12 am
If Boehner can't muster votes for plan B, is it a foregone conclusion that we're going over the cliff at this point? If a center right proposal can't pass the House, Obama's certainly won't, and I don't see Obama caving to the Tea Party's demands.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 22, 2012, 09:38:08 am
It's hard to imagine Republicans not supporting a deal to prevent taxes from automatically going up on the middle class, considering that the majority of Americans seem likely to blame them if it happens.  My guess is that there will be a deal in the next 10 days to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the "wealthy" (perhaps those earning over 400K), extending the tax cuts for everyone else, with a "framework" for spending reductions that's ambiguous enough to allow passage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 22, 2012, 09:41:58 am
The Mayans were right!

Almost.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on December 22, 2012, 09:52:19 am
Who knows?  I imagine there will be so much pressure to do something that there will be some kind of an agreement at the 11th hour, but then again, there's been a lot of pressure out there to get something done already and nobody seems to want to budge. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 22, 2012, 10:41:32 am
Anyone have thoughts on the NRA's proposal to have armed guards in every school?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 22, 2012, 10:44:33 am
Anyone have thoughts on the NRA's proposal to have armed guards in every school?

Stupid.

Both sides are wrong if they think that abolishing guns or brandishing them is the answer. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2012, 10:53:56 am
The predictions of the financial cliff are as accurate as the predictions of the Mayan disaster.

The 800 billion dollar stimulus package barely budged the economy.  An 80 billion dollar tax increase will have as small an effect.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2012, 11:04:22 am
The predictions of the financial cliff are as accurate as the predictions of the Mayan disaster.

The 800 billion dollar stimulus package barely budged the economy.  An 80 billion dollar tax increase will have as small an effect.

Without disagreeing with your central point, there is a major difference in the effect on the economy when you are comparing spending to reward political interest groups and to create what amounted to Democratic patronage and removing earnings from those who are productive and generate wealth for the economy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 22, 2012, 11:10:09 am
I think it's important to have a plan to deal sensibly with the federal budget.  I hope both sides will try to work out a plan that will make it fiscally possible for the government to provide the help and services it needs to as the population ages and health care needs grow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2012, 11:16:58 am
If Boehner can't muster votes for plan B, is it a foregone conclusion that we're going over the cliff at this point?

It's a foregone conclusion to me, and since that may be the only way to get the spending cuts needed, it may actually be the best option.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2012, 11:22:48 am
Anyone have thoughts on the NRA's proposal to have armed guards in every school?

Requiring armed guards is likely both too far, and yet not far enough.

Do we really want kids to see armed guards in their schools?  Put one armed guard in a large school, and have him at the other end of the school and he he is still going to be several minutes away.  With the armed guard identified as the only security on hand, and he becomes a target, and eliminating him leaves the building once again a gun free zone.

Instead ALLOW 9not require) teachers and staff with concealed carry permits, and after some real training and psychological testing, both of which would be periodically revisited, to carry, with restrictions on anyone with the school disclosing who was carrying or who was not.  You now have anyone wanting to attack uncertain who might respond with deadly force.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2012, 01:17:32 pm
Allowing teacher to be trained and then to carry guns in schools is a reasonable way to deal with a problem that can NOT be perfectly solved.  As long as there are crazy people, some of them will kill other people with some type of weapon.

How many guns were used by the crazies on 9 - 11?  Should we ban airplanes?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 22, 2012, 02:56:20 pm
Quote
Anyone have thoughts on the NRA's proposal to have armed guards in every school?

Laughable.  They effectively removed themselves from the discussion among grown-ups by indicating that they have nothing useful to contribute.

Banning all guns is obviously not the answer.  Banning assault rifles among the general population seems like a no-brainer to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 22, 2012, 03:18:44 pm
I have never owned or fired a gun.  I don't believe that owning a gun would make me or my family safer (quite the opposite, I suspect).  I don't hunt, and don't understand what gratification is derived from outsmarting an animal and shooting it (hunting for food I can appreciate, although I'm not interested in doing it).  I don't understand why people should be permitted to own "assault-style" weapons (not that I really understand what that means- I assume it means weapons that can fire many rounds with deadly force).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2012, 03:30:14 pm
I have no problem banning assault rifles from the general population (depending, of course, on how the term is defined, some have claimed that a six shot revolver is an assault weapon), but that will not make the population safe.  Consideration should also be given to allowing trained volunteer teachers to carry weapons on school property.

The two propositions are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 22, 2012, 03:31:24 pm
The Council of Police Chiefs, I heard on the radio, has said that the proposal to put a police officer in every school would mean taking 1/7th of the current officers in the US to accomplish. 

I think common sense should dictate that assault rifles be limited to licensed individuals who have undergone close scrutiny.  I don't think that would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.  But what do I know?  I don't think banning partial birth abortion should be a threat to a Woman's Right to Chose either.

I agree that the NRA came off as idiots.  I just wish that both extremes could come to grips.  Unlikely to happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2012, 04:07:02 pm
Laughable.  They effectively removed themselves from the discussion among grown-ups by indicating that they have nothing useful to contribute.

So if someone does not agree with you, they are not grown up or have nothing useful to contribute?

Banning all guns is obviously not the answer.  Banning assault rifles among the general population seems like a no-brainer to me.

DelMarFan, what is an "assault rifle"?

The rifle involved was a semi-automatic.  We have a semi-automatic rifle under our bed.

But assuming that you could define an "assault rifle," or that you actually meant either that all semi-automatic firearms or even that all fully automatic firearms should be banned from "the general population," I have to ask, in all sincerity, what do you think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was?  What does it mean?  What was it intended to do, allow, or assure?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2012, 04:10:37 pm
I have never owned or fired a gun.  I don't believe that owning a gun would make me or my family safer (quite the opposite, I suspect).  I don't hunt, and don't understand what gratification is derived from outsmarting an animal and shooting it (hunting for food I can appreciate, although I'm not interested in doing it).  I don't understand why people should be permitted to own "assault-style" weapons (not that I really understand what that means- I assume it means weapons that can fire many rounds with deadly force).

So you want to ban something, without even knowing what is meant by the term.

The shooter last week did not HAVE an automatic weapon (one which fires several rounds with one squeeze of the trigger), but instead had a SEMI-automatic weapon, which fires one round with one squeeze of the trigger, just as is the case with most handguns.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2012, 04:11:42 pm
I have no problem banning assault rifles from the general population (depending, of course, on how the term is defined, some have claimed that a six shot revolver is an assault weapon), but that will not make the population safe.  Consideration should also be given to allowing trained volunteer teachers to carry weapons on school property.

The two propositions are certainly not mutually exclusive.

dave, I will also ask you, what do you believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to do, what was its purpose?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2012, 04:14:21 pm
I think common sense should dictate that assault rifles be limited to licensed individuals who have undergone close scrutiny.  I don't think that would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.  But what do I know?

How do YOU define "assault weapon," and what do YOU think the 2nd Amendment was meant to do?

The AR15, which is the rifle which was used is owned by 3 million Americans, and is frequently used in hunting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2012, 04:34:03 pm
dave, I will also ask you, what do you believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to do, what was its purpose?

Jes - I know as well as you what the amendment was intended to do.  But the amendment is not unlimited.  The second amendment does not give you the right to bear a nuclear bomb, even though such a bomb would come in handy in defending against the Government.

And I haven't defined "assault weapon", and have already said that my agreement would depend upon how it is defined.  But, for instance, if there was a ban upon weapons that could shoot more than 10 shots in one minute, any inconvenience to hunters would be acceptable to me.  The Constitution does not guarantee an unlimited right to hunt.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 22, 2012, 04:53:02 pm
It's hard to imagine Republicans not supporting a deal to prevent taxes from automatically going up on the middle class, considering that the majority of Americans seem likely to blame them if it happens.  My guess is that there will be a deal in the next 10 days to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the "wealthy" (perhaps those earning over 400K), extending the tax cuts for everyone else, with a "framework" for spending reductions that's ambiguous enough to allow passage.


That's worse than Boehner's offer in the eyes of the Tea Party. I don't think that side is going to blink.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2012, 05:51:04 pm
I don't think either side is going to blink
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on December 24, 2012, 12:15:10 pm
Why should we re-establish a policy that has already failed. Columbine occurred during the time when the "assault weapon" ban was in force. It sure didn't stop anything there. I am also tiring of the "assault weapon" label. There are so many innaccurate definations out there. Seems that to many an assault weapon is any gun that looks scary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2012, 03:43:40 pm
I have asked 2 or three posters here how they define "assault weapon" when they have used the term.

Still waiting to hear a response.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 24, 2012, 06:39:18 pm
How we define the term is not important.  How the law defines it is the only important thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 24, 2012, 10:04:30 pm
davep, when there currently is no federal law outlawing assault weapons, and folks are either calling for a federal law outlawing them, or at least seem receptive to the idea, then how those use the term is quite important.  And when the term is used to describe a weapon which in fact is bought and used by hundreds of thousands of people to hunt deer and other game it would be very helpful to have some definition to the term provided by the person using it just so others have some idea what they are talking about.... that sometimes comes in handy in conversation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 25, 2012, 09:06:43 am
Jes - I am not responsible for what other people are calling for.

I said specifically, that I would not be against a ban on assault weapons DEPENDING UPON THE DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Please keep your response to my comments, and do not ask me to answer for OTHER PEOPLE.

Give me a definition of assault weapon, and I will tell you if I would be willing to ban them.

Hint - I could care less if they are used to kill deer.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 25, 2012, 12:19:49 pm
Jes - I am not responsible for what other people are calling for.

I said specifically, that I would not be against a ban on assault weapons DEPENDING UPON THE DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Please keep your response to my comments, and do not ask me to answer for OTHER PEOPLE.

Give me a definition of assault weapon, and I will tell you if I would be willing to ban them.

Hint - I could care less if they are used to kill deer.



dave, the question I asked had two parts to it.  You really passed on the first part (asking you how YOU defined "assault weapon," since you used the term, and then also asked you what you believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to do, what was its purpose.  You offered nothing on that, and that is actually a more important issue, because it determines the answer to the issue of regulating "assault weapons," however one might define them.

Now, back to response you gave to the first question, as you have expanded with your last comment.

You have made clear that you have no problem banning assault weapons, depending on how the term is defined.  So define it.  Define the weapons YOU would have no problem banning.

You say you would have no problem banning a weapon which "could shoot more than 10 shots in one minute."  This would include banning many lever action or bolt action weapons, and also most handguns.  I was able to empty a six-shot revolver, reload and fire five more rounds in less than a minute (and I am a LONG way from expert in such things) -- meaning you would apparently have no problem banning Colt Peacemakers and other weapons which have been around for more than 130 years.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone skilled in using a double barreled break-action shotgun could not get off more than ten rounds in a minute.  (In fact it appears a person could do it that fast with a single barreled break action shotgun if they were really good at it.  This guy seems to fire and reload at a rate of about 5 seconds per shot, or 12 shots a minute -- http://www.youtube.com )/watch?v=txB6Ul8mMd4
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 25, 2012, 02:02:17 pm
I'd assume, Dave, that the government would look to simply re-enact the previous law or something similar.  It didn't seem to have much trouble defining things the last time.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 25, 2012, 03:20:53 pm
I'd assume, Dave, that the government would look to simply re-enact the previous law or something similar.  It didn't seem to have much trouble defining things the last time.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

And under that definition the weapons used in the Virginia Tech shootings, the Newtown shootings and even the Aurora Batman shootings would have been perfectly legal.  Virginia Tech involved two pistols and a knife.  The AR 15 and pistols used in Newtown were never banned and were legally bought in CT where they have their own assault weapons ban and had it in place at the time the weapon was bought, and the Auroa shootings involved  a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, and a Glock 22 handgun.  The 100 round drum used in the Aurora shooting would not have been legal under the assault weapons ban, but it jammed before he fired even 30 rounds, so it did not make a great deal of difference, particularly when you can change a magazine in less than 2 seconds.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 26, 2012, 08:55:02 am
Come on, Jes.  We are not trying to sway a jury.  We are discussing what SHOULD or COULD be done about guns.

You need to take a course on logic, rather than emotional appeal. 

I said that I would not be against a ban on assault weapons, depending upon how "assault weapon" was defined.  Anyone reading that with a grain of sense would have known that I was saying that I am not against a ban on principle, but would decide whether or not to support it depending upon definition.  There is NO reason for me to give my own definition, since I am not a legislator.  I am a citizen, who reserves the right to support or resist any proposed law, and will wait until they define it to decide whether or not to support it. 

That seems more reasonable to me than to fight any straw man that you might put forward.

I did, however, offer a beginning point by saying that I would probably support a ban on any weapon that could fire more than ten bullets in a 60 second time period.  With all your silly bluster, you totally ignored that provisional definition.

I also said that I could care less if someone used a particular "assault weapon" for hunting.  You obviously put that forth as a distraction, since you know as well as I that hunting, in terms of time period, quantity and weapons used are regulated by every state in the country.  In fact, deer hunting, for instance, is banned in the entire city of Chicago, with no constitutional problems whatsoever.

And, of course, you entirely ignored my comment that the Federal Government DOES have the right to ban SOME weapons.  Are you going to advocate the right of every person to own a functional nuclear weapon?  If not, then we know that the second amendment is NOT absolute.

The last assault weapon ban was, to the best of my knowledge, not very effective.  That doesn't mean that congress did not have the right to pass the ban.  And of course even you know that NO LAW will solve ANY problem perfectly.  Laws against **** do not eliminate ****.  Laws against drug use do not eliminate drug use, and laws banning assault weapons, no matter how defined, will not end ALL gun deaths.  No rational person would maintain that any particular law should not exist merely because it does not eliminate the ENTIRE problem.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 26, 2012, 09:48:37 am
California evidently has the toughest gun restrictions in the Nation.  A description can be found here:

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms

Perhaps this should be the basis of federal restrictions?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 26, 2012, 10:26:57 am
Nicole Simpson, Sharon Tate, and Laci Peterson are grateful for those controls.

Dave, the last assault weapon ban was totally ineffective as determined by several liberal and conservative think tanks.  At the same time, something will be sacrificed for the insanity at Newtown, and, if it's large clips of bullets or the number of bullets fired per minute, so be it.

I am convinced that how we handle our mentally ill is more important than gun control, but, frankly, it's easier to ban things than spend money on real health issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 26, 2012, 10:33:47 am
Chicago, our President's home town, and a city with the most stringent gun laws in the nation, had 37 students shot to death in 2007, 70 in 2011, and 24 by June 15 of this year.  Think of those numbers in comparison to Newtown, in a city with zero tolerance for hand guns.  Total shot (24 dead) in 2012?  319.

This is why I feel this is not a gun problem but a cultural one.  Unfortunately we may have to find a way to limit guns while we work on the cultural issues.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 26, 2012, 10:42:38 am
California evidently has the toughest gun restrictions in the Nation.  A description can be found here:

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms

Perhaps this should be the basis of federal restrictions?

And the evidence that these restrictions work, while protecting the rights of the law-abiding citizens and preserving the deterrent value of the 2nd Amendment is..... is what?

Oh, by the way, the weapons used the the Aurora Batman shootings are not on the list, nor are those used at Virginia Tech, and while the Bushmaster used in Newtown would have been on the list, other weapons which would do the exact same thing are not.

The "assault weapons ban" not only violates the 2nd Amendment, and fails to ban what supporters really want to ban, such bans are ineffective in the first place:

With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings. 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/gun-free-zone-john-lott/1791085/

And even in places where gun restrictions are severe and have been in place for decades, that does not make schools safe: "A landlord with a kitchen cleaver barged into a kindergarten in central China, hacked to death seven children, their teacher and her mother and returned home while rescuers rushed to the scene before taking his own life."   And that attack was came after five other knife and meat cleaver attacks in a single month earlier this year: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/world/asia/13china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But the knife and meat cleaver attacks are the only only way for a nutjob to attack a school:  http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/752306.shtml

And the deadliest attack on school children?  Neither assault weapons, nor knives or meat cleavers, nor a car....  http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/18/bath_school_bombing_remembering_the_deadliest_school_massacre_in_american.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

Those who dismiss the need for citizens to have firearms to prevent tyranny or genocide by their own government ignore the fact that this nation has been guilty of both in our past -- slavery and the genocide of the native Americans being examples.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 26, 2012, 11:13:24 am
We are discussing what SHOULD or COULD be done about guns.

Was I discussing anything different?



I said that I would not be against a ban on assault weapons, depending upon how "assault weapon" was defined.  Anyone reading that with a grain of sense would have known that I was saying that I am not against a ban on principle, but would decide whether or not to support it depending upon definition.  There is NO reason for me to give my own definition, since I am not a legislator.  I am a citizen, who reserves the right to support or resist any proposed law, and will wait until they define it to decide whether or not to support it. 

Yes, there are at least two reasons for you to give your definition.  The first reason is that you were using the term, meaning it is reasonable for you to be expected to define the term you are using.  The second is that you are saying you would not oppose an assault weapon ban, meaning it is reasonable for you to set out what you mean you would not oppose banning.


I did, however, offer a beginning point by saying that I would probably support a ban on any weapon that could fire more than ten bullets in a 60 second time period.  With all your silly bluster, you totally ignored that provisional definition.

No.  I expressly addressed it, and did so at some length, pointing out that such a definition would not only cover the Colt Peacemaker from 140 years ago, but it would also cover double-barreled break-action shotguns.   Why not just prohibit anything other than single-shot muzzle-loaders?

I also said that I could care less if someone used a particular "assault weapon" for hunting.  You obviously put that forth as a distraction,

Not at all.  I responded to it because YOU raised hunting -- hunting was not at all a concern of those who insisted on the 2nd Amendment.  The purpose was to assure that citizens were capable of arming themselves against government.  And it is only when you keep in mind the purpose of the 2nd Amendment that you understand the real problem with an assault weapons ban.

And, of course, you entirely ignored my comment that the Federal Government DOES have the right to ban SOME weapons.  Are you going to advocate the right of every person to own a functional nuclear weapon?  If not, then we know that the second amendment is NOT absolute.

You confuse government powers with rights.  Rights in this context are proscriptions on the grant of power, and when you keep that in mind you avoid some of the conceptual problems you and many others seem to have on this.  At the same time, "weapons" are not the same as what is referenced in "the right to keep and bear arms."  In that context, and with the reference to "bear" arms, it would appear clear that it would NOT cover weapons which a man could not carry (even at the time, that would have allowed restrictions on cannons, for example) and the reference to "arms" and nuclear weapons or other explosive devices are certain not have anyone bearing them when they detonate, so they could be regulated.  A rifle or handgun, however, would rather clearly be precisely the kind of weaponry covered by the 2nd Amendment.

The last assault weapon ban was, to the best of my knowledge, not very effective.  That doesn't mean that congress did not have the right to pass the ban.  And of course even you know that NO LAW will solve ANY problem perfectly.  Laws against **** do not eliminate ****.  Laws against drug use do not eliminate drug use, and laws banning assault weapons, no matter how defined, will not end ALL gun deaths.  No rational person would maintain that any particular law should not exist merely because it does not eliminate the ENTIRE problem.

You are missing at least a few things.  It is not that the last assault weapon ban was not very effective, it is that there is NO real reason to believe that any such ban has EVER been effective at doing anything other than disarming the citizenry to make it easier for tyranny and genocide to bring death in numbers which had previously been unimagined.  You mention laws against drug use, which make things worse, not better.  Laws against **** are different things entirely -- they criminalize injury caused to another person.  That is not the case with our drug laws or weapons bans.  You also again miss the fact that Congress does not have any "right" to pass laws, but instead has "power" to pass laws, and that power comes from the citizens as established by the compact between the citizens and states and the federal government.... and when the Constitution set up that relationship and gave the federal government such power, certain powers were specifically and expressly withheld from that grant of power, and one of the powers withheld is the power to restrict the right to bear arms.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 26, 2012, 02:48:40 pm
If only it were a joke.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 26, 2012, 10:29:01 pm
Jes - you did such a great job responding to every aspect of my pExcept one, of course.

Do you think that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own a nuclear weapon?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 27, 2012, 10:30:35 am
Do you think that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own a nuclear weapon?

davep, this is the second time in this exchange that you seem to have missed what was exceedingly clear in what I had posted.  I answered your question right after you asked it.... and you still have not answered mine as to how you would define an assault weapon.  You did offer what you wrote what you would call a "beginning point by saying that I would probably support a ban on any weapon that could fire more than ten bullets in a 60 second time period."  Is that still genuinely a position you would support, which would include banning break action shotguns and the kind of Colt Peacemaker Wyatt Earp would have worn in the shootout at the OK Corral 130 years ago?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 27, 2012, 10:38:55 am
I am sorry Jes.  When you answered my question about whether or not individuals have the right to own nuclear weapons, I must have missed it.  And going back through your posts of the last few days, I still can not find it.

So would you please give me your answer again so that we can discuss it?

Should an individual have the right to possess a nuclear weapon?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 27, 2012, 10:45:51 am
How else can we citizens defend ourselves from the federal government?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 27, 2012, 10:56:25 am
A valid point, but perhaps not applicable in the case of nuclear weapons.0
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 27, 2012, 11:26:54 am
I am sorry Jes.  When you answered my question about whether or not individuals have the right to own nuclear weapons, I must have missed it.  And going back through your posts of the last few days, I still can not find it.

So would you please give me your answer again so that we can discuss it?

Should an individual have the right to possess a nuclear weapon?

Are you sure you didn't at least audit a few courses at the same school otto attended?

You are asking me to RE-post my answer to a question you asked (and which I answered), and wanting me to do so in order to discuss my answer, all when you still have not offered a definition of "assault weapons" and have failed to acknowledge the foolishness of your position that weapons (such as break-action shotguns or 140 year old Colt Peacemaker revolvers) which can fire more than ten rounds a minute should be banned.

I don't see much future in such discussions.

nuclear weapons or other explosive devices are certain not have anyone bearing them when they detonate, so they could be regulated.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 27, 2012, 11:36:12 am
For sure.  I mean, who would actually explode a detonating device while carrying it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 27, 2012, 12:20:20 pm
For sure.  I mean, who would actually explode a detonating device while carrying it?

Folks with the same mindset as those who flew planes into buildings....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 27, 2012, 01:00:37 pm
I'd like a F-22 if we going to defend ourselves against the government.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: wmljohn on December 27, 2012, 01:27:22 pm
I am not currently a gun owner but I want my neighbor to have one to lend me if the time comes.  I also want to be able to obtain one should I choose to do so.  I would also like to have an M-203 attached to that M-16 if I want.  I will also take an M-249 thank you.  I am very proficient with all these weapons having used them before.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 27, 2012, 01:37:24 pm
Are you sure you didn't at least audit a few courses at the same school otto attended?

You are asking me to RE-post my answer to a question you asked (and which I answered), and wanting me to do so in order to discuss my answer, all when you still have not offered a definition of "assault weapons" and have failed to acknowledge the foolishness of your position that weapons (such as break-action shotguns or 140 year old Colt Peacemaker revolvers) which can fire more than ten rounds a minute should be banned.

I don't see much future in such discussions.


Once again, Jes, you are wrong.  I have already giving you my definition of "assault weapon".  You need Oddo to give you a refresher course.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 27, 2012, 01:49:07 pm
I'd like a F-22 if we going to defend ourselves against the government.

If you can carry it, I would argue the 2nd Amendment covers that F-22.

For some reason, I don't think I need to make that argument.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: wmljohn on December 27, 2012, 01:50:09 pm
Yeah.  You might be stuck with an air baloon homie.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 27, 2012, 01:52:29 pm
Once again, Jes, you are wrong.  I have already giving you my definition of "assault weapon".

Since I am wrong, could you find that definition and cut and paste it in your response to this?

Doing so (as I did to show that you were wrong) would show my mistake very quickly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 27, 2012, 01:53:59 pm
I can get an RPG then?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 27, 2012, 01:59:18 pm
Since I am wrong, could you find that definition and cut and paste it in your response to this?

Doing so (as I did to show that you were wrong) would show my mistake very quickly.

It is the post immediately following your post answering the right to possess nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: wmljohn on December 27, 2012, 02:03:16 pm
We could join forces and get an 81MM morter team together!   ;D
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: wmljohn on December 27, 2012, 02:06:14 pm
I won't lie and tell you I miss this rythmic sound...

http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/weapons/m240b-machinegun
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 27, 2012, 02:15:22 pm
It is the post immediately following your post answering the right to possess nuclear weapons.

davep, I not only answered that, I reposted my answer to it, and am cutting and pasting it again for you here:
Quote
Quote from: Jes Beard on December 26, 2012, 11:13:24 am
nuclear weapons or other explosive devices are certain not have anyone bearing them when they detonate, so they could be regulated.

This time I have even underlined it, italicized it, put it in boldface, increased the font size and put it in red... but that is now the third time I have post those exact words.

As to your claim that you offered your definition of assault weapons in "the post immediately following (my) post answering the right to possess nuclear weapons," the first time I posted that I was the one to immediately post after my response to your question, and the second time I posted it Playtwo was the one to immediately post after me.... so perhaps you were confused about offering your definition of assault weapons in "the post immediately following (my) post answering the right to possess nuclear weapons."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 27, 2012, 05:19:14 pm
Thanks, Jes.  I appreciate the help.

As I understand it, you feel that the second amendment does not prevent regulation of nuclear weapons, but I am not sure I understand the reasoning.  Can you parse the following sentence

"nuclear weapons or other explosive devices are certain not have anyone bearing them when they detonate,"

It vaguely reminds me of the gibberish that Oddo writes.

But my guess is that you are saying that it is within the rights of the government to regulate any arms that are not actually borne at the time of detonation.  I was not aware of any Supreme Court findings in that regard, but I am not going to argue with a Constitutional scholar.

But if I understand it correctly, you feel that the Government could not regulate or ban the so called "suitcase bombs" that some experts talk about, since they can be "borne" at the time of detonation.

Have I characterized your argument correctly?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 27, 2012, 06:10:15 pm
Dave, I'm not sure any explosives are covered by the second amendment.  Nitroglycerin, dynamite, even agricultural fertilizer is highly regulated.  I can't walk in somewhere and buy a case of dynamite without proving I have a license to buy it and use it.  I'd have to sign all kinds of papers and get grilled.  Atomic bomb?  Are you kidding?

I believe the Congress and the Courts have always understood arms to be some sort of firearms.  Bows and arrows are not covered.  Nor spears, knives, or swords.  I don't think so, anyhow.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 27, 2012, 07:42:28 pm
davep, the Second Amendment is intended to allow people to defend themselves against government.

The fundamental goal of defending yourself is to stay alive.

You can not carry a nuclear bomb at the time of using it and stay alive. 

It is simply not a weapon you can "bear" and use and survive, so it is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”  District of Columbia v. Heller  (2008)

But my guess is that you are saying that it is within the rights of the government to regulate......

For the third time, you need to distinguish between powers, which the federal government has by virtue of an agreement between the people and the states and the federal government they created, and rights, which in this context are proscriptions on the exercise of powers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 28, 2012, 10:27:46 am
A disturbing article about the 4th amendment and electronic messages:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/this-weeks-senate-scandal-scorn-for-the-4th-amendment/266681/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on December 28, 2012, 10:48:01 am
davep, the Second Amendment is intended to allow people to defend themselves against government.

The fundamental goal of defending yourself is to stay alive.

You can not carry a nuclear bomb at the time of using it and stay alive. 


You need to read your own posts.  It was you that brought up the fact that there ARE people that will use weapons even when that use takes their own life.  I believe you mentioned the 9 - 11 event as an example.

People can still defend themselves against the government without guns that can shoot hundreds of shots per minute.

I am quite capable of distinguishing between a power and a right.  You are not smart enough to pull off condescending, and you are not knowledgeable enough to pull off pedantic.

No right is absolute.  And all rights conflict with other rights.  The right to bear arms conflicts with the right to public safety, and the two rights must be balanced in any society.  Just as an individual does not have the right to own a nuclear weapon (even though he can "bear" it in a suitcase, in spite of your silly example that a nuclear weapon can't be borne), an individual does not have the RIGHT to carry a weapon that can kill hundreds before help can possibly arrive.  You can quibble over the details all day, but reasonable people can create a definition of banned weapons that creates a reasonable balance between the right to bear arms and the right to public safety, neither of which are absolute.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: wmljohn on December 28, 2012, 11:05:04 am
Personal safety trumps public safety.

End of story.  I could give a rats ass if some nut blows you away.  I am looking out for number uno baby.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 28, 2012, 12:07:32 pm
You need to read your own posts.  It was you that brought up the fact that there ARE people that will use weapons even when that use takes their own life.  I believe you mentioned the 9 - 11 event as an example.

I do read them.  And the existence of suicide bombers today does not alter the meaning of the language in the 2nd Amendment, drafted and ratified 223 years ago.  The founders were concerned about people being able to defend themselves against oppressive government, foreign or domestic, and such defense implicitly involved surviving, something which clearly could not be done when using any explosive devise you might be able to carry.

Look at the language, and look at the intent of the language.

It is not hard unless you are trying to pretend the language means something other than the obvious.


People can still defend themselves against the government without guns that can shoot hundreds of shots per minute.

I see you have at least changed your standard from an absurd TEN rounds a minute (which I pointed out Wyatt Earp could have done with the revolver he used in Tombstone 140 years, or which his buddy Doc Holiday could done with a break-action shotgun at the same time).

Of course, you STILL have not even attempted to offer a definition for "assault weapon," which I am only asking you to define because it is a phrase which you used.... and which does not really have a meaningful, generally accepted definition.... and also because at least one definition often given would clearly include firearms which the founders would have intended to cover by the 2nd Amendment when they wanted to assure that people could have the firearms needed to resist an oppressive government (foreign or domestic).


I am quite capable of distinguishing between a power and a right

Then do so.

I don't believe I suggested that you were incapable of doing so, and if I did that was definitely sloppy writing on my part.  I was merely pointing out that you should start making that distinction, not only in your writing, but also in your thinking, because it is apparent you were not making that distinction (and even if you contend you were doing so in your THINKING, you clearly were not doing so in your WRITING, or in what you were expressing in your writing).

No right is absolute.

That is one view, and generally it is a view held by those who get confused over the difference between rights and powers.... you know, that distinction you are able to make, even if your comments here do not yet show you have done so.

It is NOT a view which was held by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Black or (Thurgood) Marshall.  I am confident there have been others, but I haven't read enough decisions of other justices to be certain which others might join them.  Those four had the absurd notion that language such as "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" actually meant Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.  In other words, they understood that when government was expressly proscribed from exercising a power it might otherwise have been granted, there was no balancing involved.  Government merely did not have the power to act -- the RIGHT was absolute.

And all rights conflict with other rights.

Not if you understand what rights are -- proscriptions on the government's exercise of power.  One frequently offered "conflict" is not really a conflict at all.  The conflict I am referencing is the "conflict" which some believe exists when a rabid press fans the flames of prejudice and publicity associated with a highly celebrated criminal case and the defendant's right to a fair trial.

There is no conflict between these RIGHTS, because they are both limitations on what GOVERNMENT can do.  If an irresponsible news media creates a climate where it is genuinely impossible to give a defendant a fair trial, that neither allows the government to shut down or restrict the media, nor to prosecute the defendant when he can not get a fair trial.  There is a conflict between what the government WANTS to do, and what the Bill or Rights PROHIBITS it from doing, but that is not a conflict of rights.


The right to bear arms conflicts with the right to public safety, and the two rights must be balanced in any society.

No, again, you are are finding a conflict of rights which does not exist.

The reason it does not exist is that there is no "right to public safety" in the Constitution, because the document is a grant of power to the newly created federal government, a structure for that government to operate, and a set of limitations (primarily though not exclusively found in the Bill of Rights) on the power otherwise granted to the federal government.  And despite your insistence that you understand the difference between rights and powers, and whether or not you are correct that I am "not smart enough to pull off condescending, and (am) not knowledgeable enough to pull off pedantic," your comments would certainly seem to indicate that you do not understand what you insist you do.

Just as an individual does not have the right to own a nuclear weapon....

And I never suggested that he did.

.... even though he can "bear" it in a suitcase, in spite of your silly example that a nuclear weapon can't be borne)....

It can NOT be borne at the time of use and have the person bearing it survive, meaning it can not really be a weapon for personal defense, which was at the very heart of the 2nd Amendment.  I don't have a problem with banning nukes in private hands, the Supreme Court has not had a problem with it (and the court's reasoning in Heller, as I already posted, is much in line with mine), and no one I am aware of has ever suggested that the 2nd Amendment creates that right, but you insist on creating a straw man with a distortion of the arguments I offer so you can knock down the straw man my arguments would never support.  Perhaps otto will agree with your reasoning.  I know of no one else who would.

....an individual does not have the RIGHT to carry a weapon that can kill hundreds before help can possibly arrive.

On that you are clearly and unquestionably and unequivocably wrong.

If I own a 500 acre farm and decide to hold a Woodstock-style music festival there, and the location is truly out in the boonies, more than 50 miles from the nearest city or law enforcement or EMT's, and while there I take a couple of vintage Colt Peacemakers, with a bag full of fast reload cylindars, I would very easily be able to kill hundreds before help could arrive, and I would be doing it with a weapon there is no question would be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Now I would not have a right to kill those people, but I WOULD have a right to carry a weapon which would allow it.

You can quibble over the details all day, but reasonable people can create a definition of banned weapons that creates a reasonable balance between the right to bear arms and the right to public safety, neither of which are absolute.

Again, as I have pointed out, there is NO Constitutional right to public safety --such a Constitutional right would involve an affirmative obligation on government, and there are NO rights in the Constitution which involve affirmative obligations on government.  None.

As to whether reasonable people can or can't create a definition of banned weapons which would not violate the 2nd Amendment, I never claimed otherwise.

All I did was ask you to offer a workable definition for "assault weapon," as you were using the term.... and you still have not done so, despite you complaining of ME quibbling over details.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 28, 2012, 01:00:27 pm
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/734559_442988279100107_988135675_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 01, 2013, 10:15:34 pm
At a time of far too much hysteria about gun rights and gun control, it is always nice to hear or read a voice of reasoned reflection.... Like Donald Kaul, who offers the following sound proposals:
• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312300033&nclick_check=1
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 02, 2013, 08:46:41 pm
The nra should go back to it's original intent and be forced to abandon the reactionary positions it has changed into starting in the 1970's when wingnutery forced it into positions of ignorance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on January 02, 2013, 10:37:39 pm
The original intent was  education and defense of the 2nd amendment from the slippery slope of the gun grabbers. Nothing's changed. THE ATTACKS ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT BEGAN IN THE 1930'S.

http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp


Through the association's magazine, The American Rifleman, members were kept abreast of new firearms bills, although the lag time in publishing often prevented the necessary information from going out quickly. In response to repeated attacks on the Second Amendment rights, NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 02, 2013, 11:18:31 pm
The nra should go back to it's original intent and be forced to abandon the reactionary positions it has changed into starting in the 1970's when wingnutery forced it into positions of ignorance.

It's original intent?

What is that supposed to have been?

Sponsoring fox hunts?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 04, 2013, 02:37:04 pm
At it's founding what did the nra stand for?

The nra is not a living organization. It's original intent should reign in it's obnoxious wingnut positions of today.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 04, 2013, 02:42:45 pm
Keysbart

You know nothing about the nra do ya?

They support anything in 1968 of interest?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: wmljohn on January 04, 2013, 02:49:58 pm
Quote
It's original intent?

What is that supposed to have been?

Sponsoring fox hunts?

I think it was to **** off liberals.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 04, 2013, 03:02:31 pm
You wesr a Whig johnbill?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 04, 2013, 03:28:44 pm
You wesr a Whig johnbill?

The interesting thing about Oddo is that his gibberish makes more sense than his cut and paste posts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 04, 2013, 03:38:15 pm
I think it was to **** off liberals.

Who was being pissed off by adherence to the First Amendment with regard to flag burning?  Or when the courts observe the language allowing right to counsel and dismiss convictions based on interrogations when counsel was not allowed, or when the Supreme Court held that even suspected terrorism suspects are entitled to use the right of Habeas Corpus.

Conservatives have shown every bit as much disdain and contempt for the Bill or Rights and for the entire constitution as have liberals.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 07, 2013, 08:15:59 am
Jes, I imagine you are enthusiastic about Hegel as a potential Defense Secretary.  He disdains war and wants to cut the Pentagon budget.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 07, 2013, 10:17:41 am
Since Scoop Jackson left, pretty much all Democrats have that view.  But he can't be worse than Kerry would have been.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 07, 2013, 10:56:00 am
I hope we never have leaders who want war as the first option, and if that is disdaining war, so be it.  But I lived in Nebraska while Hagel was the Senator and actually met him a few times...he can be very odd and hold contrary opinions, sometimes, I think, just to be the center of attention...like endorsing Obama and making comments about how his fellow Republicans couldn't oppose the Jew lobby.    In an effort to be more central with his views, he ends up contradicting himself.  If he's approved, watch for him to be in the news far more than a secretary of defense should be...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 07, 2013, 11:47:49 am
Jes, I imagine you are enthusiastic about Hegel as a potential Defense Secretary.  He disdains war and wants to cut the Pentagon budget.

I really am indifferent on Hegel.  As secretary of Defense, what we would see from him would simply mirror Obama's desires, so his positions on such issues wouldn't matter much.  I do hope he gets seriously challenged, however, because it is likely to weaken Obama, which is highly desirable.

The nominee which DOES concern me is the security advisor Obama is tabbing for the CIA -- that guy was a source for much of the information about the bin Laden operation, a good deal of it WRONG, and may well be responsible for the killing of Seal Team members a short time later when their helicopter was shot down.  He is a loose cannon, which is not something you want heading the CIA, and a shameless Obama worshipper, which is also not something you want heading an agency with a history of having folks killed.  He also is a big backer of expanding drone operations.  THAT nomination will likely breeze through, and he is someone who could cause (or allow) real problems.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 10, 2013, 05:00:17 pm
Hagel was right about his fellow pols who are wingnuts. They can't get on their knees fast enough when Israel needs it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2013, 12:18:38 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd0hN6kcIpQ
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 27, 2013, 10:44:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EineT9ZJEnE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EineT9ZJEnE)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2013, 10:48:14 pm
hey oddo - are you ever going to comment on how the Appeals Court tossed out the foolish decision by the Madison pet liberal judge, and upheld the legislation that was passed by the legislature and Scott Walker.  The backwater town of Madison must be in mourning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 09, 2013, 02:55:53 pm
The elimination of Saturday delivery by the Post Office is a good small first step.  But it is only the tip of the iceberg of what is required.  The next step, which should be done immediately, is to reduce delivery to three days per week, letting each mailman deliver two routes per week and reducing delivery work force by one half.

But of course, the only real solution is to totally disband the Post Office and let private firms handle what mail can not be eliminated entirely.  There is little sent through the mail that could not be better handled by Email.

And it would get rid of the largest government patronage organization in the country.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 12, 2013, 09:58:01 pm
Rubio is showing the republicans how stupid Romney was to pass him over as running mate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 12, 2013, 10:03:27 pm
Rubio is nothing.  He's going to get destroyed in 2016.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 12, 2013, 10:04:45 pm
The speech YOU heard from Rubio is not the one that would have made the difference.  It was his Spanish language version that really would have.

If Romney had gotten 36% of the Hispanic vote, he would have won.  Bush the younger got 41% of it.  The potential is there, or at least it has been.  If the Republicans continue doing their best to push Hispanic voters away, the potential to win those votes may well be gone.

Rubio, or some other Hispanic, really needs to be on the Republican ticket in 2016.  Unfortunately, I suspect the Democrats will also find an Hispanic they will tack onto the bottom of their 2016 ticket.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 12, 2013, 11:16:34 pm
It won't matter. As long as Democrats continue to play Santa Claus they will continue to win. When it all collapses the idiot voters will wonder what happened and realize that they have been duped but by that time it will be too late to fix it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: boatdrink on February 13, 2013, 08:58:09 am
It won't matter. As long as Democrats continue to play Santa Claus they will continue to win. When it all collapses the idiot voters will wonder what happened and realize that they have been duped but by that time it will be too late to fix it.

This.

It would also help if we had a media that was as willing to hold elected officials to account as it was from 2001 - 2008.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2013, 09:18:30 am
Keys, the reason the Hispanic vote has shifted Democratic is NOT because of Democrats playing Santa Claus.... but comments like that are a great way to persuade them to stay with the Democrats, not because they believe the Democrats will give them anything, but because such comments, in response to the point that Republicans have to start attracting Hispanic votes, is just one more swipe at Hispanics and a virtual effort to push them into the Democratic camp.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Keysbear on February 13, 2013, 09:37:59 am
You mis-interpreted or I worded it poorly. It was not a swipe at hispanics. My point was that it doesn't  matter if a hispanic is on the ticket or not. There are far too many people of all groups that will willingly cast their vote for the party that promises the most goodies. The hispanic vote will not change that even if they overwhelmingly vote republican.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 13, 2013, 02:07:54 pm
Keys, the reason the Hispanic vote has shifted Democratic is NOT because of Democrats playing Santa Claus.... but comments like that are a great way to persuade them to stay with the Democrats, not because they believe the Democrats will give them anything, but because such comments, in response to the point that Republicans have to start attracting Hispanic votes, is just one more swipe at Hispanics and a virtual effort to push them into the Democratic camp.

One major problem with getting the latin vote is that most Latinos are liberal on many issues.  Like most Americans, they thing the government CAN and SHOULD create and provide jobs.  They think the government SHOULD help people that were financially hurt by earthquakes, floods, hurricaine Sandy, Katrina, etc.  They think that the government SHOULD provide loans for college students.  They think the government SHOULD ensure that everyone has health care.

More than 50 % of the country believe these things, and the Latino community is among them.  The argument that the government has no constitutional power to do the above things is absolutely meaningless.  As long as conservatives are seen to be against the above actions, they will be looked on in the same way that a teen ager looks upon the parent that doesn't allow him to go an an expensive skiing trip that they can not afford.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2013, 03:04:09 pm
One major problem with getting the latin vote is that most Latinos are liberal on many issues.  Like most Americans, they thing the government CAN and SHOULD create and provide jobs.  They think the government SHOULD help people that were financially hurt by earthquakes, floods, hurricaine Sandy, Katrina, etc.  They think that the government SHOULD provide loans for college students.  They think the government SHOULD ensure that everyone has health care.

More than 50 % of the country believe these things, and the Latino community is among them.  The argument that the government has no constitutional power to do the above things is absolutely meaningless.  As long as conservatives are seen to be against the above actions, they will be looked on in the same way that a teen ager looks upon the parent that doesn't allow him to go an an expensive skiing trip that they can not afford.

First, dave, the Hispanics in this country are by and large more conservative than the rest of the electorate.  Next, if they are as you seem to describe them, how do you explain 41% of them having voted for Bush?

You are one of those who have called for making English as the national language... and you appear not to understand the way that alienates immigrant voters in general, and particularly Hispanics, who understandably (and correctly) believe such calls are generally swipes at them -- it is not because anyone is upset that the automated message when you call your bank offers you the option of pressing "3" to hear the message in Latvian or Mandarin Chinese.

You chase those voters away by supporting policy positions which would do nothing positive, and which cause the candidates you support to lose.  And then there are the idiots like Packrat who do so with more aggressive insults which they call "jokes."

Both of them cause Hispanics to feel unwelcome in Republican circles, even when the Republican positions may be much more in line with their positions than Democratic positions.

In the process the Democrats win, and the Hispanics will come to view themselves as Democratic and predictably and consistently vote Democratic, even when the party is out of step with their own beliefs.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2013, 03:04:36 pm
You mis-interpreted or I worded it poorly. It was not a swipe at hispanics. My point was that it doesn't  matter if a hispanic is on the ticket or not. There are far too many people of all groups that will willingly cast their vote for the party that promises the most goodies. The hispanic vote will not change that even if they overwhelmingly vote republican.

Keys, whites overwhelmingly voted for Romney.  Romney lost because he lost the black vote by margins so high it almost makes a sane person wonder whether vote fraud was involved, and he lost the Hispanic vote by about a 3-1 margin.

As I pointed out, if Romney had won just 36% of the Hispanic vote, he would have won the election, and Bush the younger got 41% of the Hispanic vote.  In other words they would not have needed to even come close to supporting Romney by a majority to have given Romney the election, forget about "overwhelmingly" voting Republican.  But the reason Hispanics voted so overwhelmingly for Obama is that they have felt pushed away by Republicans.... and many Republican seem determined to push harder.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 13, 2013, 05:32:20 pm
First, dave, the Hispanics in this country are by and large more conservative than the rest of the electorate.  Next, if they are as you seem to describe them, how do you explain 41% of them having voted for Bush?

I am not very good at Jesmath, but that seems to mean that 59% of them did NOT vote for Bush, even though Bush had a reputation of being pro-immigration and his brother was married to a Latina.

I am in favor of making English the official language because immigrants continuing to speak the language of their former country delays their integration into the country.  If that causes them to vote against me, so be it.

But you are wrong when you say that immigrants are more conservative that the american public.  Recent studies have shown that on issues like government caretaking such as Obamacare, Social Security, etc. they are more liberal than the public in general.

But you are right that the american public in general tend to be middle left, rather than the commonly stated middle right. 

The issue is no longer whether or not the government should "fix" the economy, but only "how" they should fix it.

The issue is no longer whether the government should lower health care costs.  The issue is only "how" they should fix it.

The issue is no longer whether we should give amnesty to illegal aliens.  the issue is only "what we should do before giving that amnesty.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2013, 08:38:18 pm
Poor writing on my part, dave,  I was not trying to say Romney could have or should have gotten a majority of the Hispanic vote, but he could have and should have gotten close to what Bush got.  And if he'd put Rubio on the ticket, Obama would likely be a former president.

Immigrants are more conservative than the rest of the nation on a great many issues, abortion being one of them, and being a very important issue for many voters.  Beyond that, on economic issues, immigrants are far more likely to support fewer economic regulations, not more, because reduced regulation helps them find work and start their own businesses.  As to any other issues you might reference in the studies, I'd like to see the studies.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2013, 08:47:38 pm
One last point in response --

I am in favor of making English the official language because immigrants continuing to speak the language of their former country delays their integration into the country.  If that causes them to vote against me, so be it.

Making English the "official language" would do virtually nothing to speed the rate at which immigrants learned English.  You would not be prohibiting them from speaking to each other in their native languages or from reading native language papers or listening to native language radio or watching native language TV.  The ONLY thing you would be doing is alienating them, and leaving them living more in the shadows as they were not able to function in society as well as if anything were translated for them.

You also have never really explained just how such foolishness would work.

Would the federal government pre-empt the states and prevent them from providing services or education in anything other than English?

Would criminal defendants who did not speak English just be scruwed in court because they didn't speak English?  If you had an important witness in a case, would you not be allowed to translate for them?  Would businesses be forbidden from providing services to their customers in anything other than English?

What would such foolishness do beyond making idiots like Sportster feel good about themselves and beat their chests, and to alienate the largest voting block in the country?

When a goal may be desirable, but the strategy to reach the goal is likely to be not only ineffective, but counter-productive on multiple levels, the strategy is not a good one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 13, 2013, 09:34:23 pm
One last point in response --

Making English the "official language" would do virtually nothing to speed the rate at which immigrants learned English.  You would not be prohibiting them from speaking to each other in their native languages or from reading native language papers or listening to native language radio or watching native language TV.  The ONLY thing you would be doing is alienating them, and leaving them living more in the shadows as they were not able to function in society as well as if anything were translated for them.

You also have never really explained just how such foolishness would work.

Would the federal government pre-empt the states and prevent them from providing services or education in anything other than English?

Would criminal defendants who did not speak English just be scruwed in court because they didn't speak English?  If you had an important witness in a case, would you not be allowed to translate for them?  Would businesses be forbidden from providing services to their customers in anything other than English?

What would such foolishness do beyond making idiots like Sportster feel good about themselves and beat their chests, and to alienate the largest voting block in the country?

When a goal may be desirable, but the strategy to reach the goal is likely to be not only ineffective, but counter-productive on multiple levels, the strategy is not a good one.

English the official language would make it more difficult to continue functioning without fluency.  Drivers tests are given in dozens of languages.  Public schools are taught in Spanish in Milwaukee, and I suspect in other places as well.  It is foolish to say that no one would learn English quicker if these things were not done.  If they do not make it easier to function without learning English, why are they done.

I could care less if people talk to each other in any language whatsoever.  I care considerably if the Government agencies go out of their way to accomodate them.  And I could care less if aliens are alienated.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 13, 2013, 10:03:57 pm
If you are concerned about public schools being taught in Spanish in Milwaukee, could you answer the question I posed about it?  Would the federal government pre-empt the states and prevent them from providing services or education in anything other than English?  Would the federal government also prohibit states from offering driver's exams in anything other than English?

And if you REALLY want to get immigrants to assimilate, why NOT require them to speak only English, ban foreign language newspapers or broadcasts?

If you aren't concerned enough about the concept of federalism to give you pause regarding federal mandates of local school instruction, you really shouldn't be bothered about things like the First Amendment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 14, 2013, 09:33:31 am
Certainly, if there was a Constitutional amendment to make English the official language, the Federal Government would prevent states from providing services in anything other than English.  That would seem to follow.

And as always, you are using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy in your argument.  There is no reason why making English the official language would reasonably necessitate banning the use of other language in personal or private interchange.  I certainly would not argue that we should do so, but you can use it as a straw man argument if you wish.

And, by the way, there is no logical reason why, if I want one portion of the Constitution changed by amendment, that I must therefore be in favor of ignoring all portions of the Constitution.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 14, 2013, 12:07:26 pm
Certainly, if there was a Constitutional amendment to make English the official language, the Federal Government would prevent states from providing services in anything other than English.  That would seem to follow.

Not really, because there is nothing in making a language "the official language" which to me would even suggest that services could not be provided in anything other than the "official language."  I would actually assume it to mean that official business of government would be conducted in English, in other words that members of Congress would use English in the bills they drafted, the legislation they passed, and in their own debate on the floor.  That would not necessarily preclude a translation also being provided.

And as always, you are using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy in your argument.  There is no reason why making English the official language would reasonably necessitate banning the use of other language in personal or private interchange.  I certainly would not argue that we should do so, but you can use it as a straw man argument if you wish.

It is not a straw man.  It is a result of the ambiguity of the phrase "official language," combined with your stated goal.  You believe that requiring all government services and business to be conducted in English without any official translation, you will be meaningfully encouraging immigrants to learn English and assimilate -- that is your goal, but that goal would not be in any real way encouraging folks to learn the language.  When they went to deal with a government office, they would bring their neighbor as a translator.  Kids in school would not learn English any faster, and there is a very good chance they would learn it more slowly than they would in a school making any effort to accommodate the needs of the kids.

In substitute teaching I have subbed in classrooms where the school put all of the Spanish speaking kids together with a teacher who spoke no English, and the school provided no teaching assistants to help the kids.  These were high school kids.  It was a government class.  And these were a group of kids who did genuinely want to learn English, and who genuinely wanted to learn about their new nation and its government.... and they were not learning a damb thing.  The teacher lectured them.  Gave them textbooks they could not read, and then did not even allow them to removed the textbooks from class, and tested them in English.  Of course none of them learned anything.  It was an absolute waste, and assures that those kids will grow up and finish school as second class citizens.  It is a foolish, misguided approach.

But if you really wanted to get the goal you say you want, you would do the things I mentioned -- requiring folks to communicate in English at all times, or at least to require all newspapers/magazines/broadcasts to use English.

And you still have not addressed what would be done with a criminal defendant who did not speak English or the vital witness who did not speak English.

Those questions are not reducing things to absurdity (though the idea itself has always seemed rather absurd to me).  They are very real questions.

And, by the way, there is no logical reason why, if I want one portion of the Constitution changed by amendment, that I must therefore be in favor of ignoring all portions of the Constitution.

Perhaps I have missed it, but in the past I thought you had called simply for legislation doing this, not a Constitutional amendment, or said you were not really interested in addressing constitutional issues, but were simply discussing in an abstract manner how things "should be."  But if the issue were actually debated as a Constitutional amendment and it made it thru Congress and got sent to the states, things would be even worse, because the proposed amendment would fail, and the party seen as responsible for it would be signing its death warrant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 14, 2013, 02:01:48 pm
Not really, because there is nothing in making a language "the official language" which to me would even suggest that services could not be provided in anything other than the "official language."  I would actually assume it to mean that official business of government would be conducted in English, in other words that members of Congress would use English in the bills they drafted, the legislation they passed, and in their own debate on the floor. 

Certainly, government employees teaching in government schools at government expense could be considered "official business".  But if not, the contitutional amendment would allow a federal law to be passed banning such teaching.  And before you get silly again, lets have the constitutional amendment that makes English the official language also ban teaching non-language subjects in other languages than English.

The last is to preclude silly statements such as "how could they teach German Class in English only?"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 14, 2013, 07:58:15 pm
Certainly, government employees teaching in government schools at government expense could be considered "official business".  But if not, the contitutional amendment would allow a federal law to be passed banning such teaching.

It is often amusing to see folks who at times profess great concern for the Constitution, its limitations, and the concept of federalism, so eager to scrap, or at least ignore those concepts when it comes to something THEY want to do.

One such example is when "limited government" Republicans call for "tort reform" on a national level, replacing tort law in 50 states developed over well more than 200 years with uniform national legislation drafted by the same folks who have given us ObamaCare.

Another, dave, is when you call for the federal government deciding what STATE governments will do in dealing with people in those states, including when it tends to traditional state functions such as education.

Might as well scrap the concepts of federalism entirely if you are going to allow Congress to dictate how states will teach students in public schools.  Just have one set of national laws, everywhere, all made by our infinitely wise representatives in Congress.

And you genuinely think this is a good idea?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 14, 2013, 11:06:18 pm
It is amusing to see someone hide behind the Constitution when trying to defend their own agenda.

The Constitution contains within itself the mechanism for amendment, obviously because the writers of the Constitution realized that nothing can remain forever unchanged.  Someone advocating an amendment to the Constitution can hardly be considered to be advocating the scrapping thereof.

You have criticized Christianity because it did not ban slavery.  And yet the Constitution you give lip service to also did not ban slavery.

Until wiser heads prevailed and the Constitution was changed.  Do you feel that it should have been left to each state to decide whether or not to allow slavery?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 15, 2013, 08:54:10 am
dave, the amendment you offer would scrap federalism, and that is at the very heart of the constitution.  Scrap federalism and the amendment process itself will effectively have been made easier because of the greater control held by the federal, and the vastly weaker position of the states.

You contend I have criticized Christianity because it did not ban slavery.  You are wrong.  I never have.  I have pointed out the Christianity has APPROVED of slavery. but that is quite different from either criticism or the matter at issue (a ban versus approval).

Do I feel it should have been left to each state to decide whether to allow slavery, until such time as the Constitution banned it?  Yes.  That is my belief.  I also believe each state should be allowed to legalize or criminalize abortion, despite my rather clear opposition to abortion, just as a state should be allowed to legalize or criminalize murder of those who have already been born.

But I notice that you STILL have not answered the question I have now asked you at least five times (not just in our latest exchange here, but also in prior discussions of your idea of making English the "official language"), since all government services would have to be provided in English, what would be done with the non-English speaking criminal case defendant or the non-English speaking vital witness in court?

And I have not contended that what you propose would not be allowed under the Constitution, or that the Constitution could not be amended to require the States to take part in it.  I have pointed out merely that what you propose doing would gut basis concepts at the very core of the Constitution.  This is not at all saying the Constitution would not allow it (which is what you suggest with your reference to hiding behind it), but instead to point out that what you propose would involve such fundamental changes in the relationship between the states and the federal government that you would effectively have altered it in ways and to an extent you seem not to have considered.

I don't believe I have ever argued, or even suggested, that there is anything in the Constitution which would prevent a state from establishing English as its official language.  I have argued against it, and pointed out that it would be mistaken, foolish and misguided, but not that it would be unconstitutional.  I have also pointed out that a state could adopt some OTHER language as its official language... and that that would also be mistaken, foolish and misguided.

But nowhere in my position has there been any hiding behind the Constitution.  A bit surprised to see that kind of a straw man argument from you.

But, as I have at lease alluded to before, if you are going to amend the Constitution to require English to become the official language not just of the federal government, but also the state governments, and you are going to so fundamentally alter the concept of federalism as to have the federal government dictate the language used in state funded schools, and if you are wanting to do all of this in the name of assimilation of developing a sense of a single national identity, it would make sense to also change the First Amendment to at least require all publications and broadcasts to be in English (that is not a restriction on content), and also to take steps to limit the plethora of broadcast choices now available on TV. After all, when there were only 3 channels available, a national identity was much more likely to develop and be fostered by limiting the entertainment options.  Make sure everyone is watching Lucy, Ozzie and Harriet or Leave It To Beaver and your goal will be much further advanced.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 15, 2013, 10:08:52 am
The amendment that I offer would not scrap federalism any more than the amendment that banned slavery.  It would certainly alter federalism, but even you must realize that it would not scrap it.  You are merely playing to a jury, rather than trying to get at the truth.

Christianity did not approve slavery.  It merely recognized it's existence, and it's overall unimportance in the overall scheme of things.  Again, you are applying your particular morality to past cultures.

And I have answered your question several times in previous posts, and it is one that you could answer yourself if you didn't want to play games.  Courts would be conducted in English, and translators could be provided to ensure that defendants understood what was happening, and that their defenses were translated into English.  What I am recommending is a general policy, and every general policy requires some exceptions.  I am recommending a general policy.  I am not recommending specific and detailed legislation.  You would realize that if you were not trying to take advantage of the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.  Playing "gotcha" might sway the uneducated, but does nothing to advance understanding.

You are hiding behind the constitution when you claim that my suggestion that we amend the constitution is unconstitutional.

And again, altering your concept of Federalism is NOT the same thing as destroying the concept of Federalism, any more than altering the concept of Federalism was destroyed by disallowing states to decide the policy on slavery.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 15, 2013, 10:13:23 am
I, personally, do not believe that it is necessary to require "Ozzie and Harriet" to be broadcast only in English.  If you believe so, then make your case.  It certainly has nothing to do with my suggestion that official government business be conducted in English, since I am not aware of any official government broadcasts of "Ozzie" being broadcast in other languages. 

But of course, you knew that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 15, 2013, 10:43:35 pm
I, personally, do not believe that it is necessary to require "Ozzie and Harriet" to be broadcast only in English.  If you believe so, then make your case.  It certainly has nothing to do with my suggestion that official government business be conducted in English, since I am not aware of any official government broadcasts of "Ozzie" being broadcast in other languages. 

But of course, you knew that.

Sorry.  I apparently did not do a very good job making my point.

You indicated that the major purpose for your "English as the official language" support is the idea of having the country unified, avoiding division and conflict, and all of that wonderful Happy Days stuff.  If that is your purpose, it would seem that the goal could be accomplished much better simply by limiting entertainment options, as was the case in the wonderful 1950's when the entire nation watched I Love Lucy, Ozzie and Harriet or Leave It To Beaver together.  It wouldn't even be a violation of the First Amendment because there would be no restriction at all on content -- just on the number of options available.  The country would once again have shared experiences and it would achieve your goal much better than making English the official language, a move which would do very, very little toward reaching your goal, and which would effectively gut the concept of federalism.

So if your stated goal is in fact real, and you have emphasized to me that it is, why not advocate an approach which would require no constitutional amendments, would not scrap the very nature of the federal government, and would be more effective at reaching your goal?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 15, 2013, 11:27:17 pm
What a stupid comment.

You believe that free markets are good.  Does that mean that you believe that a president that interferes in free markets should be assassinated.  That would certainly advance the cause of free markets.

You believe that we should have unlimited immigration into the country.  Does that mean that you believe all those that do not believe that should be killed.  that would certainly advance the cause of unlimited immigration.

Look up the definition of the definition of reductio ad absurdum.

Just because someone believes that a goal is good, that does not mean that they believe that every conceivable means of advancing that goal is also good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 16, 2013, 12:15:13 am
dave, returning to the TV options of the 1950's would be a far less drastic move than what you propose, would require no amendment to the Constitution, would not eliminate the very essence of our system of federal government, and would do a much better job accomplishing your stated goal.  There is an absurdity here, but it is the idea you seriously propose about making English the official language and then imposing that on the states and state-run public schools.  The fact that others such at Pat Buchannan and Newt Gingrich may have also proposed the idea makes it no less absurd.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 16, 2013, 12:36:30 am
"The fact that others such at Pat Buchannan and Newt Gingrich may have also proposed the idea makes it no less absurd."

Quite the contrary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 16, 2013, 12:44:52 am
Play, Buchannan and Gingrich are actually, like dave, pretty good examples of the point.

Both of them talk about the importance of the concept of federalism, and of limited federal government, and yet at different times I believe each of them has promoted making English the official language, and for stated reasons very much the same as dave has voiced.... but the idea would do little to nothing to achieve the stated goal, would do far less than other things which would be constitutional and which would do nothing to undermine federalism.  In the case of both of Buchannan and Gingrich the more likely reason for advancing the idea was to appeal to their base political supporters, something as important for those making money as talking heads as it is for those running for election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 16, 2013, 09:20:35 am
As has been stated in the past, it is quite possible to have more than one goal, just as it is quite possible to have more than one right.  And just as it is possible for various rights to conflict with each other, so it is possible for more than one goal to conflict with each other. 

Goals, as rights, have to be balanced by reasonable people.

Only a fool would believe that" freedom of speech" gives a person the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.  Only a fool would believe that the "right to bear arms" gives a person the right to own a nuclear weapon.  One major reason we have a Supreme Court is because someone has to make decisions on where to draw the line on when rights conflict, and most do not want to make the legislatures the final authority.

Buchannan and Gingrich have indeed talked about the importance of federalism and limited government.  But only an idiot would believe that either concept are absolute.  Even the concept of "limited government" contains within it the assumption  that there should be some government, an should not be "no government".  Which leaves it up to each individual to decide for himself where to draw the line.  And any line drawn would by necessity be arbitrary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 16, 2013, 11:24:30 am
As has been stated in the past, it is quite possible to have more than one goal, just as it is quite possible to have more than one right.  And just as it is possible for various rights to conflict with each other, so it is possible for more than one goal to conflict with each other. 

Goals, as rights, have to be balanced by reasonable people.

Only a fool would believe that" freedom of speech" gives a person the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.  Only a fool would believe that the "right to bear arms" gives a person the right to own a nuclear weapon.  One major reason we have a Supreme Court is because someone has to make decisions on where to draw the line on when rights conflict, and most do not want to make the legislatures the final authority.

Buchannan and Gingrich have indeed talked about the importance of federalism and limited government.  But only an idiot would believe that either concept are absolute.  Even the concept of "limited government" contains within it the assumption  that there should be some government, an should not be "no government".  Which leaves it up to each individual to decide for himself where to draw the line.  And any line drawn would by necessity be arbitrary.

Nice rambling.... but what does it have to do with the discussion?

What are the other counterveiling interests or goals you are balancing?

If the interests are the interest in creating some common identity, versus the interest of maintaining the value of the federal system and limited government, it would seem you are willing to give up a great deal of the latter (to the point of scrapping the federal system entirely) in order to achieve very little of the former, since it would result in very few additional people speaking English, and would simultaneously create further divides and conflict between those who speak English and those who do not, or who are closely related to those who do not, and who would likely feel the English-speaking majority was targeting them and hostile toward them.

It would seem that someone who actually did as you believe should be done (looking at the costs of different and competing options and weighing them against the benefits which might be gained from them) would recognize that what you are calling for would be foolish.

Of course some folks have difficulty acknowledging such things in online exchanges when they become utterly wed to their positions, regardless how little sense they make.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 16, 2013, 02:50:59 pm
 it would seem you are willing to give up a great deal of the latter (to the point of scrapping the federal system entirely)

That is the second time you said something similar.  I ignored it the first time because I suspected that you were just making your usual overstatement for effect.

But can you tell me how restricting the states rights to teach schools in another language destroys the entire concept of federalism, but restricting the states rights to decide the slavery issue did not destroy the federal system.

Why did restricting the states rights to decide who in the state gets to vote not destroy the federal system.

Did taking away the state's right to regulate their own medical system destroy the federal system?

And if so, how many times can the federal system be destroyed.

It would seem that someone who actually did as you believe should be done (looking at the costs of different and competing options and weighing them against the benefits which might be gained from them) would recognize that what you are calling for would be foolish.

I disagree that conducting official governmental activities would not result in more English speaking people, but of course, that isn't the point.  I believe that the much of the success of the United States was due to the fact that most immigrants coming here came to become Americans, and even those that didn't, suffered because of it.  There is no reason whatsoever for the United States to make it easier, rather than harder, for immigrants to assimilate.

As far as costs are concerned, the cost of teaching schools in English is much cheaper than teaching schools in various languages, and the costs of producing immigrants that have not assimilated is substantial.  My mother was born and raised in Iowa, but did not learn to speak English until she entered school at age 5.  If school had been taught in Dutch, the damage to her and the community would have been substantial.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 16, 2013, 04:46:48 pm
it would seem you are willing to give up a great deal of the latter (to the point of scrapping the federal system entirely)

.... can you tell me how restricting the states rights to teach schools in another language destroys the entire concept of federalism, but restricting the states rights to decide the slavery issue did not destroy the federal system.

Why did restricting the states rights to decide who in the state gets to vote not destroy the federal system.

Did taking away the state's right to regulate their own medical system destroy the federal system?

And if so, how many times can the federal system be destroyed.

In case you have forgotten what you have proposed, it is not just that schools must be taught in English (which would do wonders to encourage immigrants to form and use their own private schools, which would be de facto segregated and result in LESS assimilation, not more... but such is the result of the rule of unintended consequences), but also that the local or state government conduct its business and provide all government services in English.  Public education is a vastly more significant government function than regulation of physicians... which, by the way, are still regulated at the state level.  Slavery was abolished through a rather narrow constitutional amendment and one which expanded individual rights.  Just as the federal government is composed of three branches of government, each one balanced against the other so none of them becomes too powerful, the parties there are also three different parties or interests involved in the formation of the federal government, and Madison wrote about it at length in the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist Paper #46.  Those three parties are the federal government, the state governments and the individual.  Nearly every amendment to the Constitution with the exception of the foolish ban of alcohol sales, expand individual liberties, particularly the 14th Amendment ending slavery.  You support an amendment which would both restrict individual liberties, and also expand the power of the federal government at the expense of the stats.

Those are real costs, all for the ephemeral hope of greater assimilation. even though as I pointed out which the de facto segregation which would happen with the formation of foreign language, immigrant schools, you might well produce LESS assimilation, and greater segregation that would happen otherwise.  Certain costs incurred for uncertain, and highly limited benefits.  Just not a good trade-off.

I believe that the much of the success of the United States was due to the fact that most immigrants coming here came to become Americans, and even those that didn't, suffered because of it.

And while immigrants for more than 200 years have been learning English without making English the "official language," now you feel there is a need to do so?

As I have pointed out before, the primary support for "English as the official language" comes from the same folks who 160 years ago made up the aptly named Know Nothing Party, the Jake the Butchers depicted in The City of New York.  Whether YOU are with them in their irrational xenophobia or not, that is the core support for the idea.

As far as costs are concerned, the cost of teaching schools in English is much cheaper than teaching schools in various languages, and the costs of producing immigrants that have not assimilated is substantial.  My mother was born and raised in Iowa, but did not learn to speak English until she entered school at age 5.  If school had been taught in Dutch, the damage to her and the community would have been substantial.

Your first first sentence appears to address "cost" in reference only to budget expenses, and that was not at all among the costs I was referencing.  Your third sentence appears to address costs in a broader sense, but still only in a very localized context, precisely the context local communities themselves should be free to address in whatever manner they desire, since the costs are theirs, and not costs of society in general.  Just as I would oppose any effort to require schools to accommodate immigrant students by providing any instruction in their original languages, even when research shows what the school is doing results in students learning English faster and also doing a better job of mastering the course content, I likewise oppose prohibiting schools from doing so.

You also still have failed to address the question I have asked you now at least six times (not just in our latest exchange here, but also in prior discussions of your idea of making English the "official language") -- since all government services would have to be provided in English, what would be done with the non-English speaking criminal case defendant or the non-English speaking vital witness in court?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 16, 2013, 06:45:03 pm
I have already said that in court cases, they would be conducted in English, and interpreters would be provided to ensure that the accused understood the proceedings, pretty much as they are now.  You asked the question 6 times, and I answered it 10 times.

And while immigrants for more than 200 years have been learning English without making English the "official language," now you feel there is a need to do so?

For 200 years, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman.  Yet you have indicated that you feel there is a need to change THAT now

Nativity scenes have been accepted as appropriate in city halls for 200 years.  Yet you feel the need to change that now.

For 200 years, public schools have been conducted in English.  It is not I that is pushing for change.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2013, 08:05:42 am
I have already said that in court cases, they would be conducted in English, and interpreters would be provided to ensure that the accused understood the proceedings, pretty much as they are now.  You asked the question 6 times, and I answered it 10 times.

If you have answered it even once, I have either missed it or forgotten it, but instead of arguing over how many times you have either responded or ignored the question, can you explain why in those circumstances you would have an interpreter, but you would not allow a translation of the criminal code sections the immigrant defendant might be on trial for violating BEFORE he violated the law he was ignorant of at least in part because he could not read it?


And while immigrants for more than 200 years have been learning English without making English the "official language," now you feel there is a need to do so?

For 200 years, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman.  Yet you have indicated that you feel there is a need to change THAT now

Actually, I don't believe I have indicated that.  I am close to indifferent on the issue, though I do believe it is a mistake for the federal government to impose one course or another on the states.  If a state wants to allow gay marriage, or pedophelia, or necrophelia, or plural marriage, or bestiality, or marrying a lizard, or abolish all marriage, those are decisions which states should make, not the federal government.  And at the state level, my preference would be that the state simply get out of the picture and allow individuals to enter into whatever consensual relationships they wish.

Nativity scenes have been accepted as appropriate in city halls for 200 years.  Yet you feel the need to change that now.

For the most part, they simply were not challenged in court.  If someone wants to challenge it, then the constitutionality of the action needs to be addressed... and generally it is going to lose, just as it would have lost if challenged 200 years ago.

For 200 years, public schools have been conducted in English.  It is not I that is pushing for change.

Actually, you ARE the one pushing for change.

For 200 years schools and the teachers in them have been free to use whatever manner they felt was best to teach students the desired material.  And in many parts of the United States, I have no question but that at times, when there was a significant immigrant population with kids who spoke no English, some of the instruction was in the native language of the student, or bi-lingual students were used as informal interpreters.

You are the one wanting to change that.

I am not calling for state legislation or federal legislation requiring bi-lingual instruction, or native language instruction.  I am simply opposed to legislation or constitutional amendments, at the federal OR the state level, which would prohibit that.

As I have mentioned, I have taught in classrooms where EVERY STUDENT was a native Spanish speaker, and where EVERY STUDENT was far more fluent in Spanish than in English, and where some of the students had an English language command little better than being able to ask how to find the restroom, and even then perhaps only with gestures.  And in those classrooms I have seen nearly all of those students EAGER to learn, including specifically eager to learn about the culture, laws and government of this country.

And I have seen what happens when there is no effort at all to accommodate them -- they become disinterested, distracted, learn nothing and misbehave.  And I have seen what happens when there is an effort to accommodate them -- they LEARN.

The decision should be made on the local level, and not be dictated from Washington.

Now, with your "points" responded to, I have to point out that you are starting to sound about as rational on this as otto.

Seriously, the fact that other changes in technology or culture might make change in the law appropriate, does not mean that all aspects of the law should be changed.  Your last post, and the "arguments" you make in it amount to nothing more than that -- arguing that because other things are being changed now, there should also be a change on whether we do or do not have an official language.  That makes no sense.

If you had made even a minimal effort to argue that while immigrants for more than 200 years have been learning English without making English the "official language," there is some reason to believe that they no longer are learning English, you might have had a point.... but you have never made that argument, and I am unaware of any study indicating that immigrants today are learning English than in the past.

Has exposure to otto had that corrosive and effect on your thought process?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 17, 2013, 10:45:33 am
Your tactics are great for swaying ignorant readers, but are useless at arriving at a mutual understanding.

My proposition is quite simple.  We should have a Constitutional amendment to ensure that Government business is conducted in English only, except when translations are necessary for court procedings, which themselves should be conducted in English, with translators provided.  You then try to muddy the issue with quibbles such as translations of the criminal code, as if immigrants would be pouring over the criminal code to ensure they commit no crimes.  But probably the worst thing we could do is publish the criminal code in more than one language.  Even the best translations are not perfect, and substantial problems could arise if something turned out to be illegal in English and legal in Spanish.

Of course, you have once again deliberately mischaracterized my argument.  My point, which would have been understandable to everyone other than you and Oddo, was not that , since we change other laws, we should also change this one, but was in reference to your post that requiring schools to be taught in English only would DESTROY the concept of Federalism.  I merely pointed out some instances in which the Constitution was amended to take certain powers away from states, and yet the concept of Federalism was not destroyed.

Your argument was nonsense in that respect, as well as in most others.

But at least your spelling and grammar tend to be better than Oddo's.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2013, 02:33:37 pm
The concept of federalism has been seriously eroded, the court case of Wickard v. Fillburn doing wonders, with the Civil War preventing secession, direct election of Senators, and the federal civil rights legislation under Johnson being major corrosive forces in the process.

But it is not quite dead yet.

You seem eager to embalm it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 17, 2013, 06:01:19 pm
No.  Merely to correct it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2013, 07:02:52 pm
To "correct" the concept of federalism by further weakening it?

The hypocrisy of professed small government conservatives on such issues is always fun to watch.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 17, 2013, 07:54:14 pm
No.  I am recommending that we correct one weakness of federalism.

You seem to confuse blind adherence to s foolish cause as some sort of strength.

Federalism is very good in most instances.  In some instances, such as when federalism allowed slavery to continue for almost one hundred years, it must be tempered with intelligent modification.

Federalism, like just about everything else in the world, must be applied rationally, not blindly, as you do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2013, 10:06:34 pm
dave, the problem was slavery was rather obvious, and failing to eliminated through a constitutional amendment would have had it continue.

You can not come close to making such a claim regarding your desire to make English the official language.  For more than 220 years we have had immigrants coming to this country and learning the language and assimilating.  You want to introduce a solution to a problem which does not exist, or which at least to the extent that it does exist has always resolved itself perfectly well for more than 220 years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2013, 06:51:09 am
And the media has always advocated the concept of "diversity" over that 220 year as they do today?

The founding fathers realized that they could not forsee everything that would happen in the future, so they created the mechanism for amending the Constitution.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 18, 2013, 08:22:57 am
They certainly did create that mechanism.  They also deliberately made it difficult enough that it is very difficult for nutty ideas to pass (difficult, but not impossible -- see for example the 18th Amendment).

Those pushing English as the Official language as you do will not only fail, but as I have pointed out, with the fastest voting block in the nation you will so discredit yourselves and any party associated with you in the process that you will condemn yourselves to losing the White House for decades to come if the idea ever gains enough traction to become a serious topic of debate.

This is the kind of thing liberals just love to see Republicans call for.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2013, 08:31:49 am
I am not pushing for a constitutional amendment, any more than I am pushing for making all official business be done in English. 

It should be done. 

It won't be done.

Conservatives have lost that battle, just as they have lost most battles.

The Unites States is on a downhill decline, both culturally and politcally, that isn't going to be reversed.  The best we can hope for is that it can be slowed.  The Constitution was an excellent document for a culturally conservative country.  As the country becomes more culturally liberal, the Constitution is becoming less relevant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: BearHit on February 18, 2013, 10:32:24 am
And mentally, as well...

http://www.livescience.com/24713-humans-losing-intelligence.html

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 18, 2013, 10:40:46 am
You only have to watch Jerry Springer to know that, Bear.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 27, 2013, 01:15:45 pm
You only have to watch Jerry Springer , sarah palin, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, sean hannity, a dead brett breitbart er fox news to know that, Bear.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2013, 01:44:12 pm
You only have to watch Jerry Springer , sarah palin, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, sean hannity, a dead brett breitbart er fox news Oddo the Yokel to know that, Bear.

I fixed it for you, Oddo.

Have you resigned from your union yet?  Remember, Scott Walker has freed you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 07, 2013, 01:20:16 pm
Has Lindsey Graham been on the right side of any political activity since the impeachment trial of Clinton?

For the most part, he is worse than McCain.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 07, 2013, 02:19:11 pm
I'm not sure which issue you are talking about now, dave, but listening to him either last night or this morning offer his support for presidential kill lists I was wondering the same thing.

Graham is one of those who under Bush was loudly insisting that the Bill of Rights had no application to non-citizens or to anyone not on U.S. soil, and he was so adamant in his insistence, and proclaiming his expertise as a JAG prosecutor, that I actually started to wonder whether there might have been some merit to his claims.... so I read it closely, and then read some of the ratification debate in the Federalist Papers and some of the court decisions addressing the issue, and concluded that he was entirely wrong... and then when the Supreme Court addressed the issue they agreed that the position he insisted was right was absolutely wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 07, 2013, 02:22:37 pm
I was referring to the criticism that he and McCain have given to Rand Paul over his filibuster yesterday.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 07, 2013, 03:21:49 pm
What is it you saw from him?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 07, 2013, 03:33:49 pm
Rand was demanding a response from the Administration admitting that the government does not have the right or authority to kill people with drone strikes within the United States that are not involved in immediate combat against the United States.

Lindsey and McCain said that the very act of asking the question was embarrassing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 07, 2013, 08:22:55 pm
I agree with Rand, and agree with you about Lindsey and McCain being wrong about Rand's filibuster, or his comment about a drone strike on Jane Fonda 40 years ago, being embarrassing.... but now the question needs to move beyond the borders of the U.S. and beyond just U.S. citizen.

How long are we as a nation going to continue to accept the president's claim that he has the authority under the Constitution to declare someone an "enemy combatant" if they are not on U.S. soil and put them on a kill list?

Nothing in the Constitution even suggests that it limits the power of the Federal government only when dealing with U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 07, 2013, 09:04:39 pm
You don't agree with Rand on that portion.  He said that he has no problem with the overseas strikes that take out those that can not be arrested and brought to trial.  He just wants confirmation that it would not happen within the borders of the United States.

His exact comments were that in the present age, the battlefields extend beyond geographical borders, and the enemies can not be allowed asylum in foreign countries.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2013, 07:20:50 am
I am aware of Rand's comments, but they were not quite as broad as you suggest.  His criticism was not just of drone strikes on US soil, but with the idea that the entire world is a battlefield.  I suspect that he will press the issue further in the months ahead, but whether he does or not, it needs to be, and my last comment was not that Paul would press anything further, but merely that "but now the question needs to move beyond the borders of the U.S. and beyond just U.S. citizen."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 08, 2013, 10:01:17 am
When he was interviewed on FOX, he agreed with the concept that the battlefield was not restricted to specific countries.  Either he has changed his views, or he is trying to confuse his audience.

I was aware of your comments, and their meaning.  But you seemed to imply that Rand agreed with your views.  If he does, he is being very evasive.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2013, 11:30:44 am
But you seemed to imply that Rand agreed with your views.  If he does, he is being very evasive.

No.  You may have inferred it.  I did not imply it.

Look again at what I wrote.

I agree with Rand, and agree with you about Lindsey and McCain being wrong about Rand's filibuster, or his comment about a drone strike on Jane Fonda 40 years ago, being embarrassing.... but now the question needs to move beyond the borders of the U.S. and beyond just U.S. citizen.

How long are we as a nation going to continue to accept the president's claim that he has the authority under the Constitution to declare someone an "enemy combatant" if they are not on U.S. soil and put them on a kill list?

Nothing in the Constitution even suggests that it limits the power of the Federal government only when dealing with U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil.

I set out where the question needs to move, and likely will move.

I did not say, or suggest, that Rand Paul would push the question, or even answer in the same way I do.

I merely set out where the question needs to move.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 08, 2013, 02:19:43 pm
True.  But since I misunderstood it, it is probably a good thing that I posted as I did, or others may also have misunderstood it.

I assume that our goal is communication, rather than competition.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FITS on March 08, 2013, 02:47:43 pm
I assume that our goal is communication, rather than competition.

Your goal, maybe.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: davep on March 08, 2013, 02:52:50 pm
It is a goal we all fail at, occasionally.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2013, 05:32:51 pm
True.  But since I misunderstood it, it is probably a good thing that I posted as I did, or others may also have misunderstood it.

I assume that our goal is communication, rather than competition.

I don't think I did an end zone dance in there at any point.

It seemed I simply corrected you to help with the communication, or at least that was all I intended.

If you saw it as competition, perhaps you could explain sometime just what the competition might be, so I could perhaps play along with you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FITS on March 08, 2013, 05:43:55 pm
It is a goal we all fail at, occasionally.

Some exponentially more than others.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 08, 2013, 06:53:55 pm
Some exponentially more than others.

You mean like those who try to communicate that Puerto Rico is an independent country?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: FITS on March 11, 2013, 07:39:45 am
LOL! Somehow I knew the PR thing would be brought up.

Jes, take Puerto Rico and your overly dead horse and shove them up your a*s*s....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 11, 2013, 12:20:48 pm
Jes, I think you will enjoy this article by Conor Friedersforf of The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-the-establishment-press-got-rand-paul-wrong/273880/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: ticohans on March 11, 2013, 02:36:08 pm
P2, excellent article. Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 11, 2013, 03:00:16 pm
Thanks for the link, Play, but the thing I did not see in the article (and perhaps I simply missed it) is WHY the establishment press got Paul wrong (and to a significant degree continues to do so).

The problem to a very large degree is that journalists are by and large liberal, want government to coerce behavior to conform with the model they desire, and really do not like freedom.  This often causes them not to look to cover issues or candidates or even political races but to have them actively champion one candidate and to make every effort to undermine another.... and despite that Paul won.  As a candidate he is a much better advocate of the libertarian position than his father, and much more likely to be acceptable to the electoral mainstream.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on April 12, 2013, 06:35:52 pm
Who knew?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/12/us/drought-study/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 06, 2013, 12:14:34 pm
Quote
There may not be a single cemetery in Massachusetts or in the entire country that is willing to be Tamerlan Tsarnaev's final resting place, a funeral director told CNN on Monday.

And that has left Peter Stefan in a very difficult spot.

"I think they (the cemeteries that have been asked) probably fear reprisals from people who have loved ones being buried there, people who may potentially buy lots there," the funeral director said.

--------------

But, "We have to bury this guy," he continued. "Whoever he is, in this country, we bury people."

Do we really have to bury this guy?

Why don't they just cremate his body and throw his ashes in the nearest dumpster they can find?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/us/boston-attack/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/us/boston-attack/index.html)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on May 06, 2013, 12:27:21 pm
Muslims don't believe in Cremation.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: JR on May 06, 2013, 12:38:20 pm
That makes some sense, but if he or his family didn't consider that guy to be a Muslim, is there any legal requirement to bury him as opposed to cremate his body?  That funeral director says we bury people in this country, but cremations are a pretty common thing. 

And I guess I'm mostly venting because that story is the front page story at CNN, and forgive me for being inconsiderate, I just don't care too much about what they do to this guy's body.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 06, 2013, 01:11:10 pm
They buried Osama at sea.  Tell this funeral director to rent a boat.  There's one full of holes in some guy's backyard near him.