WRITING in New York, Benjamin Wallace-Wells makes a case that Bain Capital under Mitt Romney played a significant role in creating the contemporary economy:
“Mitt Romney is the real thing. He was, by any measure, an astonishingly successful businessman, one who spent his career explaining how business might operate better, and who leveraged his own mind into a personal fortune worth as much as $250m. But much more significantly, Romney was also a business revolutionary. Our economy went through a remarkable shift during the eighties as Wall Street reclaimed control of American business and sought to remake it in its own image. Romney developed one of the tools that made this possible, pioneering the use of takeovers to change the way a business functioned, remaking it in the name of efficiency. Whatever you think of his politics, you have to give him credit,” says Steven Kaplan, a professor of finance and entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago. “He came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses.”
The protests going on at Zuccotti Park now have raised the question of whether that transition was worth it. What emerged from that long decade of change was a system that is more productive, nimble, and efficient than the one it replaced; it is also less equal, less stable, and more brutal. These evolutions were not inevitable. They were the result, in part, of particular innovations developed by a few businessmen beginning a quarter century ago. Now one of them has a good chance of becoming president.
Among other things, Mr Wallace-Wells lays at Mr Romney's feet a portion of responsibility for the rise of corporate takeovers, the "shareholder-value revolution", the astonishing increase in executive compensation, the acceleration of outsourcing, the rapid rise of economic inequality, as well as a decisive shift in America's corporate culture. Mr Wallace-Wells writes:
By the time Mitt Romney left Bain Capital for good, in 1999, American CEOs looked very different from the predecessors he had met in the seventies—the genial paternalists, spending their careers at a single company. More and more, they were pure meritocrats—well-educated, well-compensated, moving frequently between jobs and industries, trained to look ruthlessly for efficiency everywhere. They look a great deal more, in other words, like Mitt Romney.
It would be quite a scoop indeed had Mitt Romney actually been such a central figure in the transformation of American business. Not to say that Mr Romney was not among those at the forefront of a number of seminal developments in the 1980s and 90s in the way American corporations were bought, sold and managed. But I daresay had Mr Romney really been the one-man force for increased efficiency Mr Wallace-Wells suggests he has been, he'd now be worth a good deal more than $250m. It seems to me Mr Wallace-Wells has rather oversold Mr Romney's influence in a rather audaciously ambitious attempt to establish the unlikely thesis that the man most likely to run against Barack Obama in 2012 was a significant force behind America's economy becoming "less equal, less stable, and more brutal". But in order to make his case, Mr Wallace-Wells also oversells Mr Romney's role in making the economy "more productive, nimble, and efficient", thereby inadvertently reinforcing the key claim of Mr Romney's campaign: that he alone has the economic know-how it takes to get America back on track. As Mr Wallace-Wells says, "Mitt Romney is the real thing". And Mr Romney's proposition is that he can do for a flagging American economy what he did for the flagging companies Bain Capital turned around. He ought to write Mr Wallace-Wells a thank-you note.
What I found oddest about Mr Wallace-Wells interesting article is the strange absence of political forces in his account of America's changing political economy. Mr Wallace-Wells tells a story of economic transformation in which private-sector pioneers such as Mr Romney play the crucial role. The story is that these corporate efficiency-seekers in effect legislated from their posh offices a new model political economy. Thus they bear not only responsibility for displacing the "genial paternalists" once at the helm of America's companies, but also for displacing a model of corporate management that, while certainly less efficient, did a better job of protecting the welfare of all the corporation's many stakeholders. Mr Wallace-Wells mentions neither the role of public policy in facilitating these efficiency-enhancing changes, nor its role in protecting, or failing to protect, workers from the downside of efficiency-enhancing creative destruction. Yet it is a commonplace even on the non-socialist left that markets should be efficient, that corporations should maximise profits, and that democratic government should set "socially responsible" rules of the game and insure people against market volatility. Mr Wallace-Wells gets to politics and policy only at the end of his piece, wherein he discusses the way Mr Romney brings to policymaking the same non-ideological analytical pragmatism he applied in private sector:
Romney did not begin with a philosophical quest to improve American health care. He began with the idea of himself as a problem solver and asked those around him for a problem that he might usefully solve. I remembered, when I was told this story, an anecdote I’d heard from a former political staffer of Romney’s. On even basic philosophical questions like abortion, the staffer said, Romney did not try to resolve the question in the abstract, as a matter of principle, and would consider instead various hypothetical cases—for instance, a late-term abortion—and build from them a politics. The line that Romney is a flip-flopper may vastly understate the depth of the condition.
This might make conservative die-hards blanch. But many of us, left and right, would like markets to be as efficient as possible so that the people may enjoy the many blessings of innovation and abundance, including a government with abundant means at its disposal to provide its people the best possible public goods and volatility-smoothing social insurance. On these terms, Mr Romney—an efficiency-enhancing, public-policy problem-solver—sounds almost too good to be true.
He is so far the frontrunner for the republican primaries, well... the consistent one anyway. I thought this was an interesting pair of views on him as a candidate as well as a potential president-- what's your opinions on the article and the man it talks about?
It was kind of funny to hear the claim that the man revolutionising business could amass a fortune... and then hear that fortune was $250 million. I mean, that's a whole lot of money to you or I, but when you're talking about the kind of people who revolutionised whole industries, $250 million is more like the tip for a slowly above average lunch.
That said, Romney stands out as the sane option amongst a sea of deeply crazy Republican nominees. I mean, sure, the guy is a habitual liar, but he does seem driven by pragmatism above all else and that makes him a lot more desirable than they rest of them.
sebster wrote:It was kind of funny to hear the claim that the man revolutionising business could amass a fortune... and then hear that fortune was $250 million. I mean, that's a whole lot of money to you or I, but when you're talking about the kind of people who revolutionised whole industries, $250 million is more like the tip for a slowly above average lunch.
That said, Romney stands out as the sane option amongst a sea of deeply crazy Republican nominees. I mean, sure, the guy is a habitual liar, but he does seem driven by pragmatism above all else and that makes him a lot more desirable than they rest of them.
I can already tell you, I like him more than all the other republican candidates,
I would like Romney as the conservative candidate, but I have no idea where he actually stands. He's a snake, his policies change fluidly based on the current political climate and he's taken more 360s then this planet.
chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.
Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...
Y'know, I'm really getting sick of the 'flip-flop' accusations that keep getting flung around in political circles these days. Do you really have the same exact beliefs now that you had 5, 10, 20 years ago? I'm sure you don't, if you do then you either stick to your guns hardcore or you're entirely unwilling to seek compromise and lack the capacity to self evaluate and self moderate that are important in any leader, let alone one at the highest level of gov't.
Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...
He got the Colbert bump last night, hopefully it works.
So he is Captain of the Republican ship of fools. That's scary. I see them all dressing up as pirates for Halloween. Undead pirates sailing in on their carnival ghost ship to drain politics of any shred of civility, decency and truth. Romney is the most boring of them. And there is the whole Romney is a liar thing. Boring zombie-pirate Captain of a ship of fools liar. No thanks. Happy Halloween.
Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.
jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.
Because if ever there were a people who have a smaller government footprint than the US, it would be England.
During the 2004 election Baldwin also did the "if the person I like doesn't get elected I'll move" thing. I thought he said he would move to Canada, but it may have been somewhere else.
During the 2004 election Baldwin also did the "if the person I like doesn't get elected I'll move" thing. I thought he said he would move to Canada, but it may have been somewhere else.
He sounds unnecessarily bitter at least it makes your earlier quote a lot funnier.
jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.
Uh huh, because Obama caused the financial crisis that began before he won the election...
Meanwhile, I agree that poor economic times mean people are likely to blame the president regardless of the reality on the ground (hence your post) and that means Obama has to be vulnerable. And yet, Obama isn't running against Not Obama. He's running against a person, and the person might be able to rely on fairly poor enthusiasm among his own base, but he still needs to be able to build his own support. So far we've seen the Republicans cycle through a whole range of favourites, as they desperately search for whoever isn't Romney. Right now they're in love with Cain, who has the business success the right adores and an engaging speaking style, but ultimately he's crazy and incapable of properly describing his own position on some fundamental elements of politics, so I think it's likely he'll fall over soon enough.
In the end, it looks like the Republicans are going to end up with Romney, because they couldn't find anyone who wasn't Romney. Leaving Obama to run against 'hold your nose and vote for me' Romney.
At this point, I think Romney has the best shot at beating Obama, but not the best shot at winning the primary. The Republicans in my neck of the woods don't like him because he is not conservative enough, and the talking heads are always talking about "the candidate needs to be able to secure the conservative base".
But face it, no matter who will win the GOP primary, they will get the vote. Even if Romney is not "conservative enough", he is still more conservative than Obama.
I think that has been the Republican problem in the last few elections. They focus on "the base" which would vote for the "Not Democrat" candidate every time. And disregard the moderate voters.
jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term.
His approval rating is certainly well within the margin of error for incumbent success, and he's polling above Romney at the moment; who is his most likely challenger. Of course, this may change once the GOP primaries are over, at least the Obama v. Romney (or at least the GOP victor).
jblackheart13 wrote:
I might just move to England.
If you're concerned about economic performance, I wouldn't.
d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.
You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...
What's wrong with socialism? While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.
d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.
You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...
What's wrong with socialism? While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.
Generally the problem is that often times in the US socialism is used as a synonym for communism. Many think they are the same thing.
d-usa wrote:At this point, I think Romney has the best shot at beating Obama, but not the best shot at winning the primary. The Republicans in my neck of the woods don't like him because he is not conservative enough, and the talking heads are always talking about "the candidate needs to be able to secure the conservative base".
True. Having to appeal to the base also requires the candidates to make all kinds of insane announcements about what they'd do if they won, which they then have to backtrack on when they look to appeal to the mainstream.
But face it, no matter who will win the GOP primary, they will get the vote. Even if Romney is not "conservative enough", he is still more conservative than Obama.
I think that has been the Republican problem in the last few elections. They focus on "the base" which would vote for the "Not Democrat" candidate every time. And disregard the moderate voters.
It's a problem with both parties, to be honest. The only reason the Democrats are dodging a bullet this time is Obama is the incumbent, and doesn't have to fight to win his party's nomination.
That said, it's a mistake to assume the base will all dutifully line to vote for the Republican candidate. For one thing, those voters aren't just needed for their votes, but for getting out and canvassing the population and all those kind of things - it isn't enough to just vote, it really helps when the base is enthusiastic about it as well.
d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.
You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...
What's wrong with socialism? While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.
Generally the problem is that often times in the US socialism is used as a synonym for communism. Many think they are the same thing.
Yeah, I've seen many people incorrectly use Socialism as a synonym for things they disagree with or something bad just as often as some equate it to communism.
d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.
You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...
What's wrong with socialism? While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.
I don't have any problems with socialism, but it has become the new red scare in US politics. "I think he is a commie" has become "I think he is a socialist", even though the vast majority of people probably could not define what makes the people they call socialists a socialist.
Which probably is the reason why the people who hate how "socialist" this country is becoming under our "socialist" president always pick countries like Canada/Britain/France/Germany to move to in order to get relief from this evil "socialism".
Edited: Somehow my connection froze and posted this after quite a delay.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My uncle was visiting from Germany for the last few weeks, and he was just dumbfounded by the use of socialism as a dirty word over here.
chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.
Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...
The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.
Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.
Huntsman seems to be the only guy in the campaign that seems to understand the simple concept that the GOP doesn't need to run a dirty campaign in the general election. The economy is in the dump, that alone means the GOP should win the election in 2012. Should is the operative word because the election is still their's to lose, and the GOP is working hard at losing the election. When dealing with those that already hate Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money, nothing you say can possible make them hate Obama more. When dealing with those that love Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money because they are not going to listen to a word you say. When dealing with swing voters they already know Obama spends too much money, and they have already heard every nasty thing that can possibly be said about Obama. Continuing to fling mud will have no effect. The average swing voter would be happy to throw Obama out of office, provided of course it doesn't require electing a far right lunatic, Bush 2.0, or spineless flip flopper. Of those 3 options the spineless flip flopper is more electable than a Bush2.0 or far right lunatic, but choosing between a republican spineless flip flopp and Obama is a difficult choice for moderates/independents to make despite the fact that they don't like Obama. Seeing as how Perry=Bush.20, Romney=spineless flip flopper, Bachman & Cain=far right lunatics, and Huntsman=3% give or take 3% I'm thinking we're going to have another 4 years of Obama.
chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.
Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...
The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.
Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.
Huntsman seems to be the only guy in the campaign that seems to understand the simple concept that the GOP doesn't need to run a dirty campaign in the general election. The economy is in the dump, that alone means the GOP should win the election in 2012. Should is the operative word because the election is still their's to lose, and the GOP is working hard at losing the election. When dealing with those that already hate Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money, nothing you say can possible make them hate Obama more. When dealing with those that love Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money because they are not going to listen to a word you say. When dealing with swing voters they already know Obama spends too much money, and they have already heard every nasty thing that can possibly be said about Obama. Continuing to fling mud will have no effect. The average swing voter would be happy to throw Obama out of office, provided of course it doesn't require electing a far right lunatic, Bush 2.0, or spineless flip flopper. Of those 3 options the spineless flip flopper is more electable than a Bush2.0 or far right lunatic, but choosing between a republican spineless flip flopp and Obama is a difficult choice for moderates/independents to make despite the fact that they don't like Obama. Seeing as how Perry=Bush.20, Romney=spineless flip flopper, Bachman & Cain=far right lunatics, and Huntsman=3% give or take 3% I'm thinking we're going to have another 4 years of Obama.
Where does Ron Paul fit into this?
And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".
schadenfreude wrote:The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.
I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I think he'd certainly do better than any of the others in actually running the country, but he has simply failed to capture people's imaginations, in an election where the base has been looking around to latch onto anyone who isn't Romney. It's possible that while he might be a very skilled official, he's just not the charisma needed to get people to follow him.
Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.
Sure, but the bigger issue is if Huntsman could wow the social conservatives to get out and vote for him. I mean, McCain had a whole lot of problems trying to get them out to vote for him, I'm not sure Huntsman would be any more successful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Where does Ron Paul fit into this?
He continues to win votes from a small and highly confused minority of voters, same as he always has. He'll rally them together for the odd straw poll, and continue to pick up single digit votes in every general poll.
And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".
The swing voters matter, somewhat, but the bigger issue is convincing your side to get out and vote. Whoever the Republican candidate is, the trick will be keeping the various collections of Republican groups sufficiently happy that they'll show up to vote in big numbers. This means getting keeping up credibility on about a dozen little issues all at once, especially when those issues are often contradictory.
For Obama, this will involve convincing voters to bother at all, given the general state of the economy and failure to deliver on what voters thought he was going to deliver.
For Obama it is probably something along the lines of listing things he's attempted to do and pointing out the successes and the Republican obstructionism that caused most of the failures, with the insinuation that the Republicans ahve no real sane ideas of their own so they just say no to everyone else's. So vote for Obama and the democrats because they actually has a plan yada yada yada.
Dunno if the public would buy that, but playing up the obstructionist tactics of the past couple years seems a good idea for him regardless. Hopefully if it's Romney vs Obama it won't be a dirty fight... whichever one has the best plan should win, not who throws the mud the hardest.
jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term.
Just like Bush wasn't going to see a second term, right?
jblackheart13 wrote:I might just move to England.
Why do you hate America?
Or
When you go through Canada say "hi" to Alec Baldwin.
Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Huntsman is a Democrat. Only Democrats like him.
As an aside (found it while looking on Gallup's site for proof of Frazzle's claim), support for handgun bans is at a record low across the nation, about a quarter of US citizens.
And goddamn, 90+ polls on Obama's popularity? Did Gallup just run polls until they got one they liked? Even Bush only had 7.
They keep a running three day poll as do several polling agencies. I picked Gallup because it has long term hitorical comparables and is more neutral than say Rasmussen.
Frazzled wrote:Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans could run a paper cutout of President Obama and the paper cutout would win.
As one of the few conservatives on this forum, I don't like Romney. He may be a fiscal conservative, he may be a social conservative - but we don't know. His speeches and actions in office are at odds with one another. Given that any one of the Republican candidates could beat Obama, I would rather have a surefire candidate than one who we think is going to do what's right for the country.
Melissia wrote:Yes, and meanwhile, Obama's approval ratings are essentially the same on average as Bush, except that Bush had higher and lower extremes.
Except that its not.
At this point in his Presidency Obama has lower ratings approval than any sitting President in the study except Carter.
He's also trending down, not up. Absent a strong 3rd party (which allowed Clinton to slip in - oh how I miss him now) or a Chavez moment Obama is a lame duck.
Click the site.
Now click Bush the younger as well.
-You'll see Bush the Younger squiggly line is higher than Obama's all the way across right up to where Obama's ends. You'll also note Bush won.
Now if you are referring to Bush Sr. you'll see the same, but his ratings fall off later as the recession kicks in. We're already in a substantially deeper Reagan level recession.
As a counterpoint look at Reagan. He was rising at this point - almost directly in track with improvement in the economy.
You aren't paying much attention to the text you quoted, are you frazzled?
The site marks the average approval rating of the presidents (under historical trend, where the darker and lighter halves of the graph meet) and both Bush and Obama are pretty much the same. And seeing as I said "average", this is true according to the source you gave.
Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.
Hehe. I just pictured 40 years from now, telling my grandkids about how amazing times were under Paper Cutout Roosevelt, and how much we need to get away from the empty messages of 'hope' and 'change' that are always Elmer's glued to President Paper Cutout Obama.
When you go through Canada say "hi" to Alec Baldwin.
Did you miss the part where he served in the US military? Have some respect for people that have done more for this country than you have.
I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I think he'd certainly do better than any of the others in actually running the country, but he has simply failed to capture people's imaginations, in an election where the base has been looking around to latch onto anyone who isn't Romney. It's possible that while he might be a very skilled official, he's just not the charisma needed to get people to follow him.
I think the issue is more he just doesn't have the money to do it. He's a Washington outsider, Obama basically killed his chances of taking the presidency by posting him in China and thus marginalizing him/eliminating any chance of pre-election familiarity he might have with the voter base. Plus, he doesn't have the financial backing of the other major players right now, which limits the face time he gets.
Sure, but the bigger issue is if Huntsman could wow the social conservatives to get out and vote for him. I mean, McCain had a whole lot of problems trying to get them out to vote for him, I'm not sure Huntsman would be any more successful.
A Republican candidate doesn't need the social conservatives to carry an election. This is a fallacy that has dominated Republican thinking. Huntsman could easily win by carrying the vote of the rest of the people in this country that aren't psychotic christian fundamentalists.
Huntsman is a Democrat. Only Democrats like him.
Strangely enough I like Huntsman.
You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.
You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.
Billions of wiener dogs exhale their dragonlikie breath in your general direction Get real. He's a RINO, and this is from someone who likes much of what he says.
If the NYT is for you, you're just this side of Trotsky.
You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.
Billions of wiener dogs exhale their dragonlikie breath in your general direction
Get real. He's a RINO, and this is from someone who likes much of what he says.
If the NYT is for you, you're just this side of Trotsky.
Well, I never! The Times is a liberal rag that likes to use outdated and obscure language to reinforce its own pretentious notion of importance and self-worth. Real men (around these parts) read the New York Daily Post.
reds8n wrote:
Shut your mouth and GTFO. Have some respect for people that have done more for this country than you have.
d-usa wrote:You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...
QFT.
This is what the Tea party is saying: "America is a great nation EXCEPT that it's not enough like Somalia."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:As one of the few conservatives on this forum, I don't like Romney. He may be a fiscal conservative, he may be a social conservative - but we don't know.
TBH, he sounds like the perfect Republican candidate -- wait, I see what you mean -- he must seem like a conservative but then increase federal spending and do next to nothing (or just nothing) with regard to the social conservative issues. Yes, I agree -- the trouble with Romney is that he appears to be what he is: a corporate-minded weather vane.
biccat wrote:As one of the few conservatives on this forum, I don't like Romney. He may be a fiscal conservative, he may be a social conservative - but we don't know.
TBH, he sounds like the perfect Republican candidate -- wait, I see what you mean -- he must seem like a conservative but then increase federal spending and do next to nothing (or just nothing) with regard to the social conservative issues. Yes, I agree -- the trouble with Romney is that he appears to be what he is: a corporate-minded weather vane.
I don't know what I'd do without your intentional distortion of my comments Manchu.
d-usa wrote:You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...
QFT.
This is what the Tea party is saying: "America is a great nation EXCEPT that it's not enough like Somalia."
Er...thats wrong. You're thinking the Libertarian Party.
The Tea Party is saying 1) balance the budget 2) small government works best. 3) Frazzled for 2012. Join the Wiener party. We'll chase those fat cats right out of Washington.
Thats kind of snappy now that I think about it. I already have the party emblem, and of course "the wiener dog song" would be the party theme song.
A vote for Frazzled is a vote for treats in every bowl, a warm blanket - even two- in every kennel. Frazzled for President, he'll shield us from the vultures of the world.
Phanatik wrote:I think I'd want to see the Tea Party rally sign extolling the virtues of Somalia before I'd buy that claim.
It's not too necessary that they say it explicitly. Sabotaging the operation of the government and the economy speak louder than any campaign poster.
biccat wrote:Yours is truly a dazzling mind.
Yes, my ability to correlate facts with intentions must appear quite awesome to you.
Frazzled wrote:You're thinking the Libertarian Party.
That's what I thought I was thinking, too, but then I read the news papers and found that it's actually this thing called the Tea Party. They're not an actual political party, you see -- it confused me, too!
It's not too necessary that they say it explicitly. Sabotaging the operation of the government and the economy speak louder than any campaign poster.
So by this logic the Democratic Party really are Leninists. After all, tax the rich doesn't say murderous killing fields, but its not too necessary that they say iut explicitly.
No, Frazzled, this is another case of knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. In the past year, the Republican party actually has sabotaged the operation of the federal government and our national economy. On the other hand, the notion that Democrats are going to come to your house, seize your guns and your person, and then put you up against the wall (borrowing your old favorite phrase there) is just a fantasy from a fantasy land.
Manchu wrote:No, Frazzled, this is another case of knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. In the past year, the Republican party actually has sabotaged the operation of the federal government and our national economy. On the other hand, the notion that Democrats are going to come to your house, seize your guns and your person, and then put you up against the wall (borrowing your old favorite phrase there) is just a fantasy from a fantasy land.
Really.
1. Republican Party is not the Tea Party.
2. You've just effectively inferred Treason. Please pray tell how they've committed Treason.
3. Gun control. All I have to say is Project Gunrunner.
I thought for sure you'd cry Waco. I'd say the bait-and-switch politicking the Republican leadership -- led along by the nose by the Tea Party bloc -- shows intent to shut down the operation of the government, which was successful, and negligence regarding the national credit rating. Yes, I do believe this constitutes treason and that, in these treasonous acts, the Republican leadership demonstrated clear favor of their own prospective political victories over the actual commonweal of our Republic.
At that time, Mitt Romney said the president had the power to end the crisis by adopting spending cuts along with appropriations -- which is exactly what Obama proposed to do, to the tune of John Boehner's initial demands even. Romney also said, while stumping for his candidacy, that Americans should elect someone who doesn't care about re-election ... once again opening his mouth to say nothing. Romney is to American politics what spammers are to internet fora.
I thought for sure you'd cry Waco.
***Thats so 1990s, and nothing to do with the current administration, which has proven its own activities.
I'd say the bait-and-switch politicking the Republican leadership -- led along by the nose by the Tea Party bloc -- shows intent to shut down the operation of the government, which was successful, and negligence regarding the national credit rating.
***Or, its malfeasance on the part of the Democratic members of Congress, who refused to put forth a budget during all of the Obama Presidency. Saying "you have to get closer to having an actual budget" is not treason, its prudent financial management. If Treason, then all the families in the USA who don't drive themselves into bankruptcy are similarly traitors. Thats...strained thinking.
Yes, I do believe this constitutes treason and that, in these treasonous acts, the Republican leadership demonstrated clear favor of their own prospective political victories over the actual commonweal of our Republic.
***Enlightened self interest in not treason. Again, every family in the US does this. Further, Reid was offered this opportunity in 2010 to increase the debt ceiling but didn't take it. What you're proposing is effectively criminal as a violation of fiduciary duties if trustees did it. So you're equating NOT doing what would be illegal is Treason?
At that time, Mitt Romney said the president had the power to end the crisis by adopting spending cuts along with appropriations -- which is exactly what Obama proposed to do, to the tune of John Boehner's initial demands even.
***The President could have shut down spending. He didn't I guess he was being a Traitor too. Time for impeachment hearings. Serbia look out - you're going to get bombed again!
I particularly enjoyed the part where you accused the Republicans of not having a jobs bill and then attacked Romney's jobs bill. Impressive bit of mental gymnastics.
biccat wrote:Ny god, were you not a MOD I'd think you were a poorly disguised troll.
So, given that you are not a moderator, where does that leave you?
biccat wrote:While you appear to think that Romney is a "corporate-minded weather vane," please don't make the mistake in assuming that I feel the same way.
So how would you describe him? Your answer so far is "conservative or not." I certainly don't ever assume that you'd agree with me and, believe me, your lack of agreement is about the furthest thing from a personal insult that I can imagine. My comment was more to the effect of conservatives seeming to like de facto flip-floppers (which makes sense, given how schizophrenic the contemporary Repbulican party is) but not flip-floppers that look like flip-floppers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:By reading the article, I now know what Romney's Jobs bill looks like. Capital stripping and Outsourcing for everyone!
So ... he's right on board with the rest of his party!
Easy E wrote:Now now, I don;t think we need to throw the "treason" word around.
My only real question for Republicans is if you won the 2010 electiosn promising Jobs, where are the jobs/ Where is your jobs bill?
Oh, you Jobs bill doesn't exist, but you are willing to say the President doesn't have anythign new to offer? I see.
By reading the article, I now know what Romney's Jobs bill looks like. Capital stripping and Outsourcing for everyone!
Whether you like or dislike them, several jobs bills were sent to the Senate, and not even allowed to be heard. Evidently Senate Democrats are traitors too. My the Hangman is going to be busy soon.
Also spending bills were similarly sent to the Senate and killed without review. it would appear under the Manchu doctrine that Senate Democrats are the Traitor equivalent of Black Marines. They're so traitorous they're like Traitors X2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:snip snip snip
Why is it sometimes you know how to use quote tags and other times not?
Manchu wrote:No, Frazzled, this is another case of knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. In the past year, the Republican party actually has sabotaged the operation of the federal government and our national economy. On the other hand, the notion that Democrats are going to come to your house, seize your guns and your person, and then put you up against the wall (borrowing your old favorite phrase there) is just a fantasy from a fantasy land.
It's odd that you feel that the operation of the government could have any beneficial affect upon the economy. Usually it's government regulations and politically-driven laws hampering the economy. These usually come from democrat controlled congresses.
17.Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
19.Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20.Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
26.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
28.Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29.Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
@Frazzled: Mere politicking isn't treasonous. The President showed good faith efforts at compromise and the traditional Republicans responded. They then remembered their balls were tucked safely into Tea Party purses and reneged. This happened more than once. You can use all the analogies you like (family budgets, laws regarding private investments) but you're still not getting to the reality that we're talking about: if the ship won't sail right, the Tea Party will bend real conservatives over the table to make damn sure the thing sinks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:It's odd that you feel that the operation of the government could have any beneficial affect upon the economy. Usually it's government regulations and politically-driven laws hampering the economy.
biccat wrote:Ny god, were you not a MOD I'd think you were a poorly disguised troll.
So, given that you are not a moderator, where does that leave you?
Well, I'm not someone who hides behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters. Not that you are, mind.
Manchu wrote:So how would you describe him? Your answer so far is "conservative or not."
I would describe him as "conservative or not." I'm fairly certain he's not conservative under the standard definition, he's been given ample opportunity to distance himself from his governorship and has failed to do so.
Manchu wrote:I certainly don't ever assume that you'd agree with me
So please refrain from making comments like: "Yes, I agree -- the trouble with Romney is that he appears to be what he is: a corporate-minded weather vane"
Manchu wrote:and, believe me, your lack of agreement is about the furthest thing from a personal insult that I can imagine.
Manchu wrote:My comment was more to the effect of conservatives seeming to like de facto flip-floppers (which makes sense, given how schizophrenic the contemporary Repbulican party is) but not flip-floppers that look like flip-floppers.
While that may be what you intended, your comment was not to that "effect." The effect of your comment was to imply Republican agreement with your distorted view of Gov. Romney.
While you may be able to perform the convoluded mental gymnastics to "correlate facts with intentions" of other posters, please try to tone down the great leaps of blind faith so that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up.
Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Mere politicking isn't treasonous. The President showed good faith efforts at compromise and the traditional Republicans responded. They then remembered their balls were tucked safely into Tea Party purses and reneged. This happened more than once. You can use all the analogies you like (family budgets, laws regarding private investments) but you're still not getting to the reality that we're talking about: if the ship won't sail right, the Tea Party will bend real conservatives over the table to make damn sure the thing sinks.
AAAAHHHH I get it. If my side does it, its politicking. If your side does it, its treason.
biccat wrote:Well, I'm not someone who hides behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters.
That's not my read. Take what you just posted, for example. Or this one:
biccat wrote:While you may be able to perform the convoluded mental gymnastics to "correlate facts with intentions" of other posters, please try to tone down the great leaps of blind faith so that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up.
It's takes no blind leap of faith to see a movement that goes to a lot of trouble to shut down the federal government and force the downgrading of our national credit rating and then conclude: "they must have wanted to do those things."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:AAAAHHHH I get it. If my side does it, its politicking. If your side does it, its treason.
Nope, and no points for effort, either. Back in early August, I really thought the Republican party was finding some footing with John Boehner. "Finally," I said to friends and family, "real conservatism that's really interested in governing the county effectively." Of course, then Eric Cantor stepped in.
Manchu wrote:That's not my read. Take what you just posted, for example. Or this one:
What exactly are you saying Manchu? Are you disputing my assertion that I'm not hiding behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters?
Manchu wrote:It's takes no blind leap of faith to see a movement that goes to a lot of trouble to shut down the federal government and force the downgrading of our national credit rating and then conclude: "they must have wanted to do those things."
No, you're correct that such reasoning does not take a blind leap of faith.
But when you attribute those actions to the Tea Party rather than the Democrat Party, that's where the blind leap of faith comes in.
However, as I mentioned in my post (which I would invite you to read again, because, despite your intellectual superiority, you appear to have missed my intention) was that the rest of us cannot divine your intention from your post when the intention is blurred.
@biccat: I say that you constantly toe the line and that a great many of your posts are cheap shots. I also say that you cry foul when you perceive others do it to you. I think they call it wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.
biccat wrote:But when you attribute those actions to the Tea Party rather than the Democrat Party, that's where the blind leap of faith comes in.
No, it doesn't. The stated goals of the Tea Party and the actions of the Republican Party leadership during the budgetary crisis plainly correspond.
At least since the 30's:
Thus began Whittaker Chambers’ long, torturous journey: from Communist Party member and activist—to underground espionage agent—to hunted ex-comrade—to Time magazine writer and editor—to reluctant informer—to vilified government witness—to conservative, anticommunist icon. During that journey Chambers also found religion and developed an insight into the competing visions that fueled the titanic struggle between communism and the West.
On August 3, 1948, Chambers, testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), identified several members of an underground communist network that had infiltrated the United States government in the 1930s and 1940s.
Phanatik wrote:If you had 5 million years you could not describe me.
Yes, exactly, so thank you for doing it in one post. Let it be remembered that Phanatik is a self-confessed McCarthyist, so let's not try to pin labels on him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:That's what I learned in public school.
What was that you just criticized me about? This must be either (a) a one-time example of what you claim I do (a "cheap shot") or (b) something you do on a regular basis and then criticize others for doing ...
I particularly enjoyed the part where you accused the Republicans of not having a jobs bill and then attacked Romney's jobs bill. Impressive bit of mental gymnastics.
Well thanks for that.
Glad to see that the president is only offering more of the same, but the Republicans have some "new" big ideas.
Oh wait...
Looks like everyone is back to the same place we started. It is almost like creating gridlock and ineffectual government is a plan, so you can claim government is ineffectual in order to get elected.
Manchu wrote:@biccat: I say that you constantly toe the line and that a great many of your posts are cheap shots. I also say that you cry foul when you perceive others do it to you. I think they call it wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.
That idiom doesn't mean what you think it means. You may be thinking of "You can't have it both ways."
Further comments withheld.
Manchu wrote:The stated goals of the Tea Party and the actions of the Republican Party leadership during the budgetary crisis plainly correspond.
Or, not. I suppose it depends on whether you're looking at objective facts or reading the Daily Kos or other left-wing blogs.
edit:
Manchu wrote:What was that you just criticized me about? This must be either (a) a one-time example of what you claim I do (a "cheap shot") or (b) something you do on a regular basis and then criticize others for doing ...
I believe I criticized you for distorting other people's posts and then claiming you can divine their intent - or what they really meant to post. I don't believe I ever said you take cheap shots.
Note that I do appreciate you clarifying what you think I posted before attacking me. So often posters simply attack something they think I posted without letting me know what they're attacking me for.
@biccat: To put aside all our troubles and differences for just a minute, let me try to get one thing across to you -- whatever opinion you may have formed of me, and however I may have posted to provide you with the evidence to form that opinion, I am not interested in being a liberal for the sake of being a liberal. I'm actually longing for an authentic conservatism and I sincerely believe that the romantic, anti-government view of the Constitution espoused by Tea Partiers is not it. So while you may reasonably believe that I simply don't understand current events, I assure you that I am not just cycling through liberal propaganda points to misinform and evangelize.
And, to tie it back to OP, that's also why I dislike Mitt Romney and would call him a corporate-minded weather vane.
Manchu wrote:@biccat: To put aside all our troubles and differences for just a minute, let me try to get one thing across to you -- whatever opinion you may have formed of me, and however I may have posted to provide you with the evidence to form that opinion, I am not interested in being a liberal for the sake of being a liberal. I'm actually longing for an authentic conservatism and I sincerely believe that the romantic, anti-government view of the Constitution espoused by Tea Partiers is not it. So while you may reasonably believe that I simply don't understand current events, I assure you that I am not just cycling through liberal propaganda points to misinform and evangelize.
And, to tie it back to OP, that's also why I dislike Mitt Romney and would call him a corporate-minded weather vane.
Lets see...I know there's a relevant quote I could include here from one of the distinguished moderators on this site...
ah, here it is:
Manchu wrote:
Particularly relevant, and even includes "substantive information posted as text."
Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.
Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.
I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.
Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...
I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...
Manchu wrote:Well, if I was ever going to get you to participate in a dialog in good faith, that was it. And it's come and gone. Thanks for clearing it up, though.
Wait, what?
You misrepresent what I say, insult me throughout the thread, and now you're upset that I'm not "participat[ing] in a dialog in good faith"?
That's absolutely delightful. In fact, I think I'm going to switch my registration to Republican and vote for Romney in the upcoming primary (it's an important one) just for you.
Manchu wrote:Well, if I was ever going to get you to participate in a dialog in good faith, that was it. And it's come and gone. Thanks for clearing it up, though.
Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.
Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.
I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.
Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...
I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...
You must mean Sen. Reid refusing to bring measures up for a vote, or using procedures to stop votes. Yeah, thats obstructionism.
To say the republicans haven't done anything constructive is ridiculous.
Giving multitudes of useless speeches isn't "doing something."
The only thing that has improved since Obummer got in office is his golf game.
jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.
Hope and Change.. You voted in the hope you would have some change left in your pocket when he is all done.
Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.
Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.
I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.
Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...
I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...
You must mean Sen. Reid refusing to bring measures up for a vote, or using procedures to stop votes. Yeah, thats obstructionism.
To say the republicans haven't done anything constructive is ridiculous.
Giving multitudes of useless speeches isn't "doing something."
The only thing that has improved since Obummer got in office is his golf game.
Best,
Incorrect. WE now have thousands of hand held SAMs missiing from Libya. That has to be good right?
Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.
Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.
I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.
Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...
I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...
You must mean Sen. Reid refusing to bring measures up for a vote, or using procedures to stop votes. Yeah, thats obstructionism.
To say the republicans haven't done anything constructive is ridiculous.
Giving multitudes of useless speeches isn't "doing something."
The only thing that has improved since Obummer got in office is his golf game.
Best,
Incorrect. WE now have thousands of hand held SAMs missiing from Libya. That has to be good right?
Well, I've refused to fly since the stupid airport security rules were put in place.
Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.
Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.
I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.
Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...
I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...
You must mean Sen. Reid refusing to bring measures up for a vote, or using procedures to stop votes. Yeah, thats obstructionism.
To say the republicans haven't done anything constructive is ridiculous.
Giving multitudes of useless speeches isn't "doing something."
The only thing that has improved since Obummer got in office is his golf game.
Best,
Incorrect. WE now have thousands of hand held SAMs missiing from Libya. That has to be good right?
Well, I've refused to fly since the stupid airport security rules were put in place.
Don't worry, the TSA is coming to a vehicle stop near you. probably cause shmabbable cause.
I first thought to myself Obviously, Maher is going to simply attack religion in general and Mormons specifically, because after all, that's his thing.
Then I thought No, Maher is a professional comedian, he'll take a different approach from the blind hatred he usually spouts. Even Carrot Top moved away from the props eventually.
It appears that my first thought was right. Maher has long since turned from a professional commedian to a late night hack whose jokes are either insulting, painfully obvious, or shamelessly ripped from a better source.
Mitt Romney went to Fairfax, Virginia, today, where he assured them, repeatedly, that he loves America and he loves the people of America. Also, he loves Ohio's unpopular union-stripping bill, the one he said he didn't know much about yesterday..
Questioner: What do you say to Governor Perry and others who criticized you yesterday for not taking a position on the collective bargaining rights bill in Ohio?
Romney: Oh, I'm sorry if I created any confusion in that regard. I fully support Governor Kasich's – I think it’s called Question 2, in Ohio – fully support that.
It's hard to know exactly what this says about Mr. Romney or his campaign, since he said he wouldn't endorse the union-stripping bill while at a phone bank for the union-stripping bill, and since, as he acknowledged today, endorsed the union-stripping bill months before. But Mr. Romney didn't stop there:
"But 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. One of them, for instance, relates to health care and mandates. I've said that should be up to individual states. I, of course, took my state in one direction. They may want to go in a different direction. I don't want to tell them what I think they ought to do in that regard – that's up to them. So it was with regards to that issue, that I didn't want to make a commitment."
So on Wednesday, it's one ballot issue that he won't take a stand on, the very tricky (for him) question of health reform. Tuesday:
Great to be here in Ohio today. I'm not speaking about the particular ballot issues. Those are up to the people of Ohio. . . . I'm not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives.
So when Mr. Romney said "issues" and "those" and "are" and "two," that was the rhetorical plural.
chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.
Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...
The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.
Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.
Huntsman seems to be the only guy in the campaign that seems to understand the simple concept that the GOP doesn't need to run a dirty campaign in the general election. The economy is in the dump, that alone means the GOP should win the election in 2012. Should is the operative word because the election is still their's to lose, and the GOP is working hard at losing the election. When dealing with those that already hate Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money, nothing you say can possible make them hate Obama more. When dealing with those that love Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money because they are not going to listen to a word you say. When dealing with swing voters they already know Obama spends too much money, and they have already heard every nasty thing that can possibly be said about Obama. Continuing to fling mud will have no effect. The average swing voter would be happy to throw Obama out of office, provided of course it doesn't require electing a far right lunatic, Bush 2.0, or spineless flip flopper. Of those 3 options the spineless flip flopper is more electable than a Bush2.0 or far right lunatic, but choosing between a republican spineless flip flopp and Obama is a difficult choice for moderates/independents to make despite the fact that they don't like Obama. Seeing as how Perry=Bush.20, Romney=spineless flip flopper, Bachman & Cain=far right lunatics, and Huntsman=3% give or take 3% I'm thinking we're going to have another 4 years of Obama.
Where does Ron Paul fit into this?
And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".
Ron Paul doesn't fit anywhere into the equation. Ron Paul is anathema to much of the republican party. Saying American imperialism was the motivation behind the 9/11 hijackers makes him less electable than an openly gay candidate. If he were to drop his talk about the gold standard (which would never get past the senate anyways) the guy could beat Obama in a general election, but like I said before in the republican primary his libertarian views make him less electable in the republican primaries than an openly gay candidate.
sebster wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.
I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I think he'd certainly do better than any of the others in actually running the country, but he has simply failed to capture people's imaginations, in an election where the base has been looking around to latch onto anyone who isn't Romney. It's possible that while he might be a very skilled official, he's just not the charisma needed to get people to follow him.
Charisma was what mattered in 08. In next year's 2nd term election it's the economy that will matter the most. Swing voters want to get rid of Obama, but they are not going to vote for a right wing lunatic instead. Next year is going to be one of those rare years where the election can be won with a charisma gap, I don't think it will matter in the general election this year. On the other hand Huntsman's failure to tell the far right what they want to hear is why he is hanging out at 3%
sebster wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.
Sure, but the bigger issue is if Huntsman could wow the social conservatives to get out and vote for him. I mean, McCain had a whole lot of problems trying to get them out to vote for him, I'm not sure Huntsman would be any more successful.
Social conservatives are now convinced Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Communist Socialist Fascist Hippie that wants to turn their children gay and convert aMerika to Sharia law. The republican party doesn't need to energize the base this year to win the election, the base is about as energized as it can possibly get.
sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:Where does Ron Paul fit into this?
He continues to win votes from a small and highly confused minority of voters, same as he always has. He'll rally them together for the odd straw poll, and continue to pick up single digit votes in every general poll.
Ron Paul supporters are consistent and I would not call them confused. About 11% of the republican party is actually hardcore libertarians, many of whom are actually swing voters. That being said Ron Paul is going to be stuck at 11%.
And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".
The swing voters matter, somewhat, but the bigger issue is convincing your side to get out and vote. Whoever the Republican candidate is, the trick will be keeping the various collections of Republican groups sufficiently happy that they'll show up to vote in big numbers. This means getting keeping up credibility on about a dozen little issues all at once, especially when those issues are often contradictory.
For Obama, this will involve convincing voters to bother at all, given the general state of the economy and failure to deliver on what voters thought he was going to deliver.
Which is why the election is the GOP's election to lose. All they need to do is go with the anti Romney vote and give the primary to Herman Cain.
Coulter wrote:In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,” says Coulter. “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.” From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives
You believe that gak, Phanatik?
And you believe that the Republican members of Congress haven't made every possible move to obstruct Obama, regardless if it would be good for the country, even though they said that's what they are doing?
Going on that, you MUST support these enlightening titles as well, no?
Frazzled wrote:
Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.
Right, which is why GHW Bush won his bid for reelection with a 68% monthly approval average during the corresponding period.
Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. WE now have thousands of hand held SAMs missiing from Libya. That has to be good right?
Clearly these were stolen from the American ground troops that were deployed to Libya, and not from the Libyan arsenal itself.
biccat wrote:
Well, I'm not someone who hides behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters. Not that you are, mind.
No, you're just someone that hides from people that are capable of turning your cheap shots against you.
biccat wrote:
While that may be what you intended, your comment was not to that "effect." The effect of your comment was to imply Republican agreement with your distorted view of Gov. Romney.
The effect of this comment is, of course, to imply that Republican views are in agreement with those of biccat, and that his views of Governor Romney are free from distortion.
biccat wrote:
While you may be able to perform the convoluded mental gymnastics to "correlate facts with intentions" of other posters, please try to tone down the great leaps of blind faith so that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up.
Perhaps you should stop ending sentences with "...not that you are."
It makes it appear as though you're attempting to lead your interlocutor.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is claiming that Mitt Romney “OKd health care for illegal immigrants” by signing Massachusetts’ 2006 health care overhaul law. But the law didn’t give illegal immigrants anything new. It merely continued and renamed a state program that had long allowed low-income, uninsured residents, including those in the country illegally, to get care at community health centers and (as in all other states) hospital emergency rooms.
Perry’s campaign seized on an Oct. 23 Los Angeles Times story that said the law Romney signed “includes a program known as the Health Safety Net, which allows undocumented immigrants to get needed medical care along with others who lack insurance.” The Times noted that the Health Safety Net “built on a previous program.” But the story did not make clear that the old program, called the Uncompensated Care Pool, did not treat illegal immigrants any differently than the newly named Health Safety Net.
We spoke with two former commissioners of the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, which oversees the hospital reimbursement program — one official under the Romney administration and one under current Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration — and both told us there is no difference between the pre-health care law program and post-law program as it relates to illegal immigrants.
Romney has made Perry’s treatment of illegal immigrants a major issue in the presidential campaign. He has been hammering Perry for allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Texas colleges. In the Oct. 18 debate, the former Massachusetts governor made the shaky claim that the program was a “magnet to draw illegals into the state.”
Now, Perry is criticizing Romney for the health care law that he signed in 2006. Perry’s website, however, falsely claims that “Romneycare – includes provisions that allow illegal immigrants to receive full health benefits for free,” according to the Los Angeles Times. That goes well beyond what the newspaper said, and that’s not what the law does. Instead, low-income uninsured people can get necessary health care at hospitals — just as they can in any other state — or, in Massachusetts, in community health centers, and those institutions can receive reimbursement through the state program, which is funded largely by an assessment on hospitals and insurers.
Sarah Iselin, president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, was the commissioner of the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy from 2007 to 2009. She told us there were no substantive changes in the way the Health Safety Net versus the old Uncompensated Care Pool affected illegal immigrants. The state health care law did add “much stronger accountability provisions” to the safety net, and it required hospitals and community health centers to screen for eligibility for Medicaid or subsidized insurance through the new state exchange, she says.
But “absolutely” care for illegal immigrants was paid for by the Uncompensated Care Pool, just as it is now by the Health Safety Net, Iselin says.
Amy Lischko, an associate professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, was commissioner of the DHCFP during the Romney administration. She also confirmed, via email, that there’s no difference between the Uncompensated Care Pool and the Health Safety Net concerning illegal immigrants. “Several changes were made to the Health Safety Net beginning in 2008,” she says. But not as it relates to immigrants. Changes were made to the payment system — the new one is “based on Medicare principles” and does away with the old “block grant” payments to hospitals — and, as Iselin mentioned, “new program integrity features were added to ensure that people were enrolled into the coverage they were eligible for before they were permitted to use the Health Safety Net,” says Lischko, who is also a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Massachusetts.
And, of course, the name was changed. But the program existed long before Romney took office.
“The Uncompensated Care Pool goes back to the 1980s,” Brian Rosman, research director for the advocacy group Health Care for All, told us via email. “The HSN is the same thing, with a new name.” In a phone interview, Rosman said his colleagues still refer to it as “the pool.” Health Care for All posted a blog item on the Times‘ story, adding context on the Health Safety Net.
The situation is similar in other states. “Every state, even Texas, has programs that acknowledge people show up for care,” Iselin says. “Hospitals have obligations under federal law to take care of people when they show up with a broken leg” or other ailments. “You can’t leave hospitals holding the bag.”
In Texas, public hospital districts provide care for illegal immigrants, and the Texas Emergency Medicaid program pays hospitals for providing emergency care.
In Massachusetts, the safety net program also reimburses community health centers. It’s not free health insurance for the people seeking care; rather, it’s payment for the hospitals and health centers that provide treatment. “This is a program for financing care that many of these institutions, either by virtue of their nonprofit mission or federal law, have to provide,” Iselin says.
Iselin, Lischko and Rosman all told us that, overall, the Massachusetts health care law didn’t give anything new to illegal immigrants that they didn’t have before.
The Romney campaign has responded to this issue by blaming Romney’s successor, Gov. Patrick. Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told MSNBC: “To the extent that illegals are receiving some kind of care under the Health Safety Net program, that would be a function of what the current governor, Deval Patrick, has put into place.” He noted, correctly, that federal law requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone, regardless of immigration status. But Massachusetts’ program, which was highlighted in 2004 by the Commonwealth Fund as one of several innovative state programs, allows access to care at hospitals and at community health centers, where it’s often cheaper, and it was started in 1985.
Fehrnstrom, MSNBC, Oct. 24: There’s nothing in the law that permits illegal immigrants to receive care that they’re not entitled to. Now, federal law requires that illegal immigrants get care in emergency settings. If they’re getting anything beyond that, that would be because of rules that were written by Deval Patrick, not by Mitt Romney.
Iselin and Lischko told us that there were no changes made by Patrick that gave illegal immigrants more benefits. Says Iselin: “As it related to how we treated undocumented folks in terms of the eligibility to get care [that was] billed to this program, we didn’t make any changes. None.”
Lischko says the Patrick administration “could have promulgated regulations that restricted care more.” But no regulations were written that would give illegal immigrants additional benefits. “Changes were made, true, but the program is more or less the same as it was before the reform.”
There isn’t solid information on how many illegal immigrants may in fact receive medical care paid for by the safety net, says Lischko. “The program has always garnered attention in the state since a bulk of the funding comes from insurers and providers,” she says. “There is not a lot of state funding in the safety net.”
Rosman doesn’t recall any major debate over whether the pool should continue to cover care for illegal immigrants when the legislation was being written. “It was part of the landscape here,” he says.
Melissia wrote:For Obama it is probably something along the lines of listing things he's attempted to do and pointing out the successes and the Republican obstructionism that caused most of the failures, with the insinuation that the Republicans ahve no real sane ideas of their own so they just say no to everyone else's. So vote for Obama and the democrats because they actually has a plan yada yada yada.
Dunno if the public would buy that, but playing up the obstructionist tactics of the past couple years seems a good idea for him regardless.
The problem there is that you can't inspire people to vote for you with a campaign slogan of 'I would have been awesome if only the bad guys let me'. It doesn't really command the respect you need.
The better option is to run on his achievements, and get people really scared about what the other guy is going to do in power. The problem here is that negative campaigning tends to depress the vote, and a reduced vote is always bad for the Democrats (as the Republican core is far more likely to turn out). It needs to be done in a very subtle way, talk about progress and small steps towards real equality and real fairness, and lost time when the country takes the wrong direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.
To be fair, a cardboard cutout of Teddy Roosevelt would beat just about anyone that's run in the last 50 years.
The problem the Republicans have is they can't run a cardboard cutout, they have to run one of the guys in the debates. And the means running a habitual liar who's forced to run against his only meaningful achievement (healthcare reform), a less charismatic version of Bush Jr, or a lunatic with a superficial tax plan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Did you miss the part where he served in the US military? Have some respect for people that have done more for this country than you have.
Why does military service give you a free pass on saying something stupid?
I think the issue is more he just doesn't have the money to do it. He's a Washington outsider, Obama basically killed his chances of taking the presidency by posting him in China and thus marginalizing him/eliminating any chance of pre-election familiarity he might have with the voter base. Plus, he doesn't have the financial backing of the other major players right now, which limits the face time he gets.
If he had better numbers, he'd have more money. Cain started with hardly any money either, but he's managed to use the debates to capture support, and the money has come from there.
A Republican candidate doesn't need the social conservatives to carry an election. This is a fallacy that has dominated Republican thinking. Huntsman could easily win by carrying the vote of the rest of the people in this country that aren't psychotic christian fundamentalists.
I wish that were true, but it isn't. Don't just look at what portion of the population identifies as social conservative, also look at what portion turns out to vote.
You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.
Moderate Republicans are more or less interchangeable with moderate Democrats. It's only on the fringes you see real differences between the two sides.
Of course, the Republicans are moving increasingly to a fringe only party and dumping their moderates, which is one cause for Huntsman's poor election result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Er...thats wrong. You're thinking the Libertarian Party.
The Tea Party is saying 1) balance the budget 2) small government works best.
... that's the point. Follow the smaller and smaller government until freedom line far enough, and you end up with Somalia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:2. You've just effectively inferred Treason. Please pray tell how they've committed Treason.
Are you actually, honest to God, going to sit there and claim you've read nothing about Republican statements that will obstruct government purely for the purpose of obstructing government?
Seriously?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:It's odd that you feel that the operation of the government could have any beneficial affect upon the economy.
Yes, if only we got rid of government enforced property laws and government backing for contractual agreements then we'd really get the economy pumping along. Oh wait that's stupid.
As long as we're going to pretend fantastical nonsense from ridiculous moral panics of decades gone by are relevant, isn't it more fun to go with this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes_and_Monsters
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:So, lets see, ...
1. McCarthy says there are communists in the government
2. There are communists in the government
3. Saying so makes one....what?
You're pretending that McCarthy's only position was to simply claim there were communists in government. Instead, McCarthy used the fear to conduct witch hunts on entirely loyal servants of government, to build his own power base and feed his ego.
At no point was any evidence of any plot to actually threaten the US uncovered by any of McCarthy's efforts. When you ruin the lives of innocent people for nothing but personal gain and an ego boost, you're a bad guy.
Just because he had an R after his name doesn't mean you have to invent a fantasy justifying him. Even football groupies can admit that not every player they've ever had was the best. Why can't political groupies do the same?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote:Charisma was what mattered in 08. In next year's 2nd term election it's the economy that will matter the most. Swing voters want to get rid of Obama, but they are not going to vote for a right wing lunatic instead. Next year is going to be one of those rare years where the election can be won with a charisma gap, I don't think it will matter in the general election this year. On the other hand Huntsman's failure to tell the far right what they want to hear is why he is hanging out at 3%
Charisma isn't a thing that sometimes matters and sometimes doesn't. You don't see polls asking people what they want out of a president, with 24% saying 'strong economic credentials' and 14% saying 'charisma'. Charisma is what gets people to listen to what you're saying, and get them to believe what you're saying is part of the solution.
Jobs are important. Whoever gets the nomination will have to convince
Social conservatives are now convinced Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Communist Socialist Fascist Hippie that wants to turn their children gay and convert aMerika to Sharia law. The republican party doesn't need to energize the base this year to win the election, the base is about as energized as it can possibly get.
It was pretty crazily energised in 2008 as well. Back then the issues about Obama's socialism, real secret muslim roots and all the impending gun control he was about to bring in. Despite that, McCain had real problems getting the base out to vote, hence Palin as VP.
Ron Paul supporters are consistent and I would not call them confused.
Not politically confused. Politically they're about as certain as anyone that they know how to fix everything. They're confused because their proposals are ridiculous.
Which is why the election is the GOP's election to lose. All they need to do is go with the anti Romney vote and give the primary to Herman Cain.
Which is great in theory, and less great when the practical application is Herman Cain.
Why does military service give you a free pass on saying something stupid?
Whats so stupid about someone expressing dissatisfaction with something and stating that they would move to another country?
If he had better numbers, he'd have more money. Cain started with hardly any money either, but he's managed to use the debates to capture support, and the money has come from there.
Cain was polling ahead of Huntsman well before the debates even started. Why, I don't know, but that is a fact.
I wish that were true, but it isn't. Don't just look at what portion of the population identifies as social conservative, also look at what portion turns out to vote.
Says the guy in Australia? The Republican party DOES NOT NEED TO CARRY THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE VOTE TO WIN AN ELECTION. Pandering to that segment of the population ostracizes way more voters than it gains. The only exception to this is, of course, the primary, where you need to pander to them if you want to carry certain states within the context of your own party. Kinda like how people need to pander to farmers in Iowa if they want to carry that state in the primary. This is part of the reason why the primary system is flawed, let alone the fact that it has no place in our government and shouldn't exist, period.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Whats so stupid about someone expressing dissatisfaction with something and stating that they would move to another country?
If, say, an Occupy protester were to say the same thing, would you take it seriously?
chaos0xomega wrote:
Says the guy in Australia? The Republican party DOES NOT NEED TO CARRY THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE VOTE TO WIN AN ELECTION.
Several studies have shown that about 30% of the electorate is socially and fiscally conservative. That's an awfully large chunk of voters to ignore in lieu of competing with the Democrats directly for independents, particularly given that people who are conservatives in both respects turn out at a higher rate.
I mean, I guess the GOP doesn't need to carry the social conservative vote in order to win, but in the real world doing so means an almost certain loss.
chaos0xomega wrote:
This is part of the reason why the primary system is flawed, let alone the fact that it has no place in our government and shouldn't exist, period.
Since all but a few democracies in the world have political parties, and even the ones that don't have them have similar systems of stratification in place, its likely that political parties are close to a natural result of democratic governance as one can come.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Whats so stupid about someone expressing dissatisfaction with something and stating that they would move to another country?
If, say, an Occupy protester were to say the same thing, would you take it seriously?
Why wouldn't I?
Several studies have shown that about 30% of the electorate is socially and fiscally conservative. That's an awfully large chunk of voters to ignore in lieu of competing with the Democrats directly for independents, particularly given that people who are conservatives in both respects turn out at a higher rate.
I mean, I guess the GOP doesn't need to carry the social conservative vote in order to win, but in the real world doing so means an almost certain loss.
I could be described as socially and fiscally conservative, yet I would never vote for a candidate on the principal of religion, one =/= the other.
Since all but a few democracies in the world have political parties, and even the ones that don't have them have similar systems of stratification in place, its likely that political parties are close to a natural result of democratic governance as one can come.
But do we need to base an election system around the concept of political parties? I say nay.
I wasn't making a stand either way, just pointing out that the natural order of things, or ones' natural response, isn't always the best one.
I mean my natural response to someone cutting me off in traffic is to strangle them, but as emotionally satisfying as that'd be it's the wrong response.
Coulter wrote:In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,” says Coulter. “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.” From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives
You believe that gak, Phanatik?
Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.
Van Jones, Obama advisor:
“I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of… I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary…I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th..By August, I was a communist.”
Regardless of who wins in the next election I plan on moving to Scotland/Ireland/great Brittan a few years after I graduate. I’ve always wanted to travel in Europe extensively and it would be easier to do so if I lived over there.
I'll probably write in a candidate for the next election... maybe frazzled…
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Regardless of who wins in the next election I plan on moving to Scotland/Ireland/great Brittan a few years after I graduate. I’ve always wanted to travel in Europe extensively and it would be easier to do so if I lived over there.
I'll probably write in a candidate for the next election... maybe frazzled…
A vote for Frazzled is a vote for Freedom.
Frazzled and the Wienerdog Party for President. They'll run the fat cats out!
Phanatik wrote:Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them.
I just think it's important that people see this mindset in its proper context:
Phanatik wrote:Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them.
I just think it's important that people see this mindset in it's proper context:
Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...
So, what, did I kick your dog?
Are you buds with Van Jones or something?
Do you think "communists" is just a bogeyman created by conservatives to scare little republicans?
McCarthy is long since gone to his grave, and good fething riddance to him and his paranoic finger-pointing arse. We should have left the witch hunts to rot in the annals of history, rather than listen to that clown.
But we have a different clown tot alk about now. Romney. And I think that's what this thread is about. I mean, I would assume to know that, considering I made the thread.
Manchu wrote:Why McCarthyism is bad should not merit discussion among reasonable adults.
And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
Do you guys get paid, by George Soros no doubt, or do you do this for free?
Melissia, for someone supposedly studying for a chem degree, you seem to have a lot of free time to depose other's comments.
Manchu wrote:I think mass hysteria is bad for our Republic.
Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil? I hear those Evilly Evil Bankers all have crooked noses. We should make them wear red hats to distinguish them so we know who we're dealing with.
Frazzled wrote:Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil?
That's not mass hysteria. Noone's asking them to be thrown in jail or charged with treason. Noone's saying they should be hanged, or expelled from the nation. Just that the government should stop favoring the rich so much as it currently does.
Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
You're right. Let's take a minute to consider that there might have been a good reason why all those women were murdered during the witch hunt craze. No no, skip that -- let's just assume the only reason we think burning women accused of witchcraft at the stake is bad is because of the "liberal censorship machine" (or the fluoridization of our precious bodily fluids or whatever). So, we've cleverly figured it out (secure under our tinfoil hats), so let's get busy right away burning these chicks. Witches and communists, too. You call Anne Coulter; I'm sure she has some plans drawn up already.
Frazzled wrote:Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil?
That's not mass hysteria. Noone's asking them to be thrown in jail or charged with treason. Noone's saying they should be hanged, or expelled from the nation. Just that the government should stop favoring the rich so much as it currently does.
Actually those statements have been made frequently by Occupy members on boards.
Manchu wrote:I think mass hysteria is bad for our Republic.
Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil?
Right, because Communists are not secretly controlling the federal government there also cannot be a very small group of people in this country that own most of the wealth. Furthermore, because there are no unicorns there also cannot be corn or horses or unicycles.
Frazzled wrote:Actually those statements have been made frequently by Occupy members on boards.
So? There's always nutjobs in every movement. The tea party is full of them. The Green party is full of them. The D and R parties have them too. So does the Libertarian party.
Also, Frazz, I have to say I don't think being wealthy makes one evil. I do think that if one is both evil and wealthy then the consequences will be that much greater.
Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
You're right. Let's take a minute to consider that there might have been a good reason why all those women were murdered during the witch hunt craze. No no, skip that -- let's just assume the only reason we think burning women accused of witchcraft at the stake is bad is because of the "liberal censorship machine" (or the fluoridization of our precious bodily fluids or whatever). So, we've cleverly figured it out (secure under our tinfoil hats), so let's get busy right away burning these chicks. Witches and communists, too. You call Anne Coulter; I'm sure she has some plans drawn up already.
Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
You're right. Let's take a minute to consider that there might have been a good reason why all those women were murdered during the witch hunt craze. No no, skip that -- let's just assume the only reason we think burning women accused of witchcraft at the stake is bad is because of the "liberal censorship machine" (or the fluoridization of our precious bodily fluids or whatever). So, we've cleverly figured it out (secure under our tinfoil hats), so let's get busy right away burning these chicks. Witches and communists, too. You call Anne Coulter; I'm sure she has some plans drawn up already.
Really, witch burning?
And in any case, those women floated, like wood.
What else floats?
silence
oh come on...
A rock?
No....
Wood?
Manchu wrote:Also, Frazz, I have to say I don't think being wealthy makes one evil. I do think that if one is both evil and wealthy then the consequences will be that much greater.
however those statements are routinely made and generally the whole point of the Occupythisparksnooneelsecanandheydontletthosehomelessinheretheyarelikeeatingallourfoodweretryingtoprotestforthepoorhere!
1% are evilly evil adn the cause of all our problems. its completely not my fault that I got this degree in BA in basketweaving and can't a job after 7 years of college and $80,000 in debt the government should pay for it! Oh and yea the government needs to make sure I get $20 an hour whether I work...er or not!
Melissia wrote:Frazzled, stop with the strawmen. It just makes you look like a petulant child.
Stop with arguing that those are statements of radicals within a group, when the group itself displays no goals or statements. if you have no platform, then all the wingnuts in your small group will be taken at their word.
And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?
This is awesome. From OccupyHouston
OccupyHouston 1st General Assembly Minutes – Sept. 30th
September 30th, 2011 · Cassie · GA MinutesOne commentHouston General Assembly Meeting #1 convened at 12:25pm 9/30/2011
Moderator- Craig
An introduction into the General Assembly process was given according to the Quick Guide to Dynamics of Peoples Assemblies.
Floor discussion on process, unable to reach consensus.
Nick- began moderating in order to facilitate the discussion of the general assembly process.
Robert- spoke on process, offered sample proposal
PROPOSAL “We should require people to turn off their cell phones at GA meetings because of the potential for disruption and surveillance.
Consensus was not reached and he had an issue with the debate process regarding proposals which do not immediately reach consensus as the sample did.
Mario- had to leave early and briefly spoke on vision. He was positive about the opportunity that the meeting offers, but for actions sake, he suggests that we coordinate with activist groups who are aware of OccupyHouston. He also observes that the largest historical protest in Houston was in 2006 in response to an immigration bill.
Brian- asked would the size of the group (IE. small vs large) affect the assembly process
Nick- said that it does
Darren- suggested that preliminary discussion of small and large issues be held in workgroups.
Craig-suggests process workgroup, seconded by ‘woman in pink’
Robert-explained that he was just making an example and not a serious proposal.
Raffi-opposed this on grounds of irrelevance and time limitations.
Nick-gave 10 minutes to discuss the cell phone issue as practice for the GA process.
‘woman in pink’- opposed the proposal because it suggests that the GA has control over its members.
‘older woman’- observes initial cell phone objection derailed discussion. Quotes Quick Guide to Dynamics of General Assembly regarding Direct and Indirect consensus.
Brian- Blocks the cell phone issue on ‘woman in pink’s grounds
Andrea- Agrees with Brian, not concerned with surveillance as these meetings are open
‘larger older woman in purple’- reiterates that this is an example
Craig- moves to table discussion and move forward on grounds that consensus has been reached
CONSENSUS- sample proposal “We should require people to turn off their cell phones at GA meetings because of the potential for disruption and surveillance.” rejected.
Nick-Thinks that ‘goals’ are too big to discuss right now, calls for discussion from those who had yet to speak.
‘Houston Indymedia photographer’ – asks if anyone has an issue with photography at the meeting and is glad that people showed up.
Group – various words of encouragement.
‘Man in Green’- suggests our group should advocate for people to vote
Nick- Moves to stack re: Vision and Goals
‘larger older woman in purple’- suggests accountability and justice as goal
John- Stresses importance of outreach to “other communities” such as immigrants, labor, and anti-war groups. Suggests we unite around common issues.
Robert- Announced that NYPD will back off aggressive tactics and suggests that the same might be the case in Houston. Also suggested that this would lead to a corresponding drop in media coverage and has concerns regarding individual or unified messages during protest.
‘Orange shirt brian’ – distinguishes between visions and objectives/goals.
Darreh – suggests that OccupyHouston needs direction, mentions FDR’s second bill of rights.
Craig- Agreed that process and discussion are parts of the goal.
John- suggested that goals may include different autonomous zones within an encampment, provided the example of set locations for democratic or anarchist meetings, repeats the urgency of the timeline leading up to Oct 6th.
Brian- Reiterates support for the GA dynamic
Nick- suggested limitations on signage, especially in regards to violence, racism, and oppression
Andrew – opposed division of camp, as it is not happening at NYC and suggested that occupation exists to provide focal point for future unrest
Robert – agreed with Nick’s suggestion
Sheila – Angry about corporate greed. Discussed her personal story regarding about destroying her credit cards after the Bailout.
Morgan – cautioned against paranoia
Murray – suggested that dialogue should be part of the goal, played devil’s advocate and asked those that were not against corporatism to make their case.
Nick- discussed involvement of varied groups regarding issue focus
Raffi- suggested that we work on demands
Bernette- Suggested that demands would be on signs
Nick- Suggested that we should prepare for attacks from corporate media who may try to divide us by showing that the group is not in agreement. Called for a stack on this issue
John P.- suggested that we should focus on the lack of transparency in government and that regular citizens are no longer seen nor heard.
Scott- Agrees
Darren- discussed FDR’s second bill of rights, the right to earn a good living, the disparity between ruling and working classes. “I want to work. I want a job and I want to get paid.
John – Discussed the importance of message, especially a unified message with other Occupations.
Andrew – “All of us are the 99% and we are being screwed”
Nick- raised Corruption & Corporatocracy as as possible focuses of demand
Robert – Suggested to end the federal reserve bank and corporate personhood
Nick- Abolishing the fed is very specific, We may not be able to arrive at consensus without a broader version of that goal.
Sheila – People shouldn’t be ignored
Scott – Election reform, GMO foods, flouridated water.
Nick- Suggested that some issues are widely considered to be conspiracy theories, and media may use sound bytes on these subjects to discredit us.
Brian- Egalitarianism
Larry – Strengthen positions and goals
Craig- Suggested that goals, direction, vision, and message should have their own discussion group
Nick – Opened suggestions for various working groups to tackle specific areas.
Received suggestions:
Media
Messaging
Outreach
Research
Legal
Security (Peacekeepers?)
Signage
Medical
GA Facilitation committee
Craig called for conclusion of the meeting and breakout into workgroups.
Meeting concluded at 2:09PM
Yeah, people who think all rich people are evil are not so credible. But there is something American about it, as much as it is American to equate wealth and goodness.
From our English forebears we've inherited a strong prejudice against power as corruption. I prefer the Norse way of thinking: you'll know who a man is when he can do what he likes. A lot of the time, people who get a hold of money do good things with it (not least of all because it coincides with their own interests, of course). But to the American mind, no tyrant however personally amicable can really be benevolent.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, people who think all rich people are evil are not so credible. But there is something American about it, as much as it is American to equate wealth and goodness.
From our English forebears we've inherited a strong prejudice against power as corruption. I prefer the Norse way of thinking: you'll know who a man is when he can do what he likes. A lot of the time, people who get a hold of money do good things with it (not least of all because it coincides with their own interests, of course). But to the American mind, no tyrant however personally amicable can really be benevolent.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Dear Lord, test me!
Frazzled wrote:And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?
I know you don't like to read things you disagree with, Frazzled, but come on! I've explained what I think it means countless times over the past week or so.
Frazzled wrote:And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?
I know you don't like to read things you disagree with, Frazzled, but come on! I've explained what I think it means countless times over the past week or so.
We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.
They are the 1 percent. They are the banks, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry. They are the important ones. They need help and get bailed out and are praised as job creators. We need help and get nothing and are called entitled. We live in a society made for them, not for us. It’s their world, not ours. If we’re lucky, they’ll let us work in it so long as we don’t question the extent of their charity.
We are the 99 percent. We are everyone else. And we will no longer be silent. It’s time the 1 percent got to know us a little better. On Sept. 17, 2011, the 99 percent will converge on Wall Street to let the 1 percent know just how frustrated they are with living in a world made for someone else. Let us know why you’ll be there. Let us know how you are the 99 percent.
Looks like 1% is being blamed, for everything. That 1% is scuttling and fiendish, not like the rest of us progs. I think they will need to wear red hats.
Phanatik wrote:
All politicians care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.
Phanatik wrote:
And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
The funny part about this is that young Phanatik has me on ignore.
Phanatik wrote:
And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
The funny part about this is that young Phanatik has me on ignore.
Phanatik wrote:
All politicians care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.
Frazzled wrote:And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?
I know you don't like to read things you disagree with, Frazzled, but come on! I've explained what I think it means countless times over the past week or so.
Funny, it sure looks like I'm right...again.
You also apparently don't bother to read what YOU posted, either.
You asked me what I think it means... not what some people with a website think it means.
Phanatik wrote:
All politicians care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.
Fixed that for you.
You're welcome.
Fixed that for you.
Uh...
So, you're saying that your first statement, that was originally quoted, was wrong?
Original statement below.
Phanatik wrote:
Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I could be described as socially and fiscally conservative, yet I would never vote for a candidate on the principal of religion, one =/= the other.
No one said that they did.
You're mixing terms.
chaos0xomega wrote:
But do we need to base an election system around the concept of political parties? I say nay.
But statistics say yea, in the face of which whatever you may want is irrelevant.
In theory we don't need political parties (2 or more) to get elected. However, minus the party concept you are going to be dependent on very rich individuals to run. The party system allows for a place to promote shared ideals so that if I give 10$ to say the Hrumpf! Party they can judge prospective candidates that share the glorious ideals of the Hrumpf and dole out say 2$ to 5 candidates rather than have that candidate have to come up with all the dollars himself or spend an inordinate time trying to talk me into personnally giving him $10.
chaos0xomega wrote:Whats so stupid about someone expressing dissatisfaction with something and stating that they would move to another country?
It's stupid because no-one ever does it. It's even dumber when it's a right winger so outraged at the thought of the country returning a Democrat to power that they'd move to the UK, which is far more left wing than the US.
Says the guy in Australia?
The number of people who are undecided between the two parties but get out and vote every election is almost completely negligible. There are plenty of folk who don't align with either party, but their voting attendance is woeful. When these people do vote, it is always terrible for the Republican party.
These are basic, very well documented stats that remain true regardless of where anyone lives. Facts are good like that.
Pandering to that segment of the population ostracizes way more voters than it gains. The only exception to this is, of course, the primary, where you need to pander to them if you want to carry certain states within the context of your own party. Kinda like how people need to pander to farmers in Iowa if they want to carry that state in the primary. This is part of the reason why the primary system is flawed, let alone the fact that it has no place in our government and shouldn't exist, period.
Sort of but not really. There is a marked difference in priorities between the hardcore of the Republican party, who vote in primaries, and the more moderate Republicans. Both groups have to be appeased for the party to be successful in an election.
But you are confusing the second group with non-affiliated voters, who have little to no effect of elections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.
Uh huh. Because by choosing team liberal, they become cynical, lying villains obsessed only with winning power. If only they'd chosen team conservative, who champion their noble and true beliefs above any personal gain.
Wow, it's gets so much easier to understand the world once we decide politics is actually just about cheering for team red or team blue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
You don't understand what censorship means. Censorship is demanding a topic cannot be discussed. It is not considering a topic too stupid be worth talking about.
You are free to spend as much of your spare time pondering how McCarthy was so hard done by, when all he did was use bully boy tactics to intimidate non-communists into giving up non-communists, but it is a stupid, stupid effort.
Not at this point in his presidency.
or mellow out already...
