I read an interesting article in the Economist, but in a nushell, this is a golden opportunity for the Republicans because Obama is clearly beatable, and yet, this far in and still they ain't got their gak together.
Every Republican candidate is pandering to the extremists in the party who believe that they must stick with their ridiculous fatwas. Perry is getting it in the neck for subsiding immigrants kids, Gingrich is having to backpeddle on any mention of climate change, Romney has flip flopped on the abortion issue too many times to mention.
Obama will win because the GOP have gak for brains. And it's a crying shame, because I don't want Obama to win.
Obama, please. No suitable democratic candidate has put their foot in the door to stop him from winning. And we all know that the republicans are running a circus this election, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.
Also, everyone who's posted before me is from the UK. LOL
A Republican win would be a disaster - all the candidates running should be locked in an Alaskan log cabin and forced to listen to Cliff Richard - they deserve no less
If Obama wins it's a disaster for America due to the GOP controlling (or predicted to) both houses = gridlock.
In any event, the whole show is a circus. And god forbid a Texan should enter 1600
I like discussing politics for the same reason many other people seem to enjoy discussing American Idol, or gossiping about celebrities (something I also love).
mattyrm wrote: I read an interesting article in the Economist, but in a nushell, this is a golden opportunity for the Republicans because Obama is clearly beatable, and yet, this far in and still they ain't got their gak together.
Every Republican candidate is pandering to the extremists in the party who believe that they must stick with their ridiculous fatwas. Perry is getting it in the neck for subsiding immigrants kids, Gingrich is having to backpeddle on any mention of climate change, Romney has flip flopped on the abortion issue too many times to mention.
Obama will win because the GOP have gak for brains. And it's a crying shame, because I don't want Obama to win.
My thoughts exactly.
Being a wee child of 23, I'm curious. Has there ever been an election of this sort before? As in where one guy you don't want to win will win because all the other candidates are on and off crazy?
mattyrm wrote: I read an interesting article in the Economist, but in a nushell, this is a golden opportunity for the Republicans because Obama is clearly beatable, and yet, this far in and still they ain't got their gak together.
Every Republican candidate is pandering to the extremists in the party who believe that they must stick with their ridiculous fatwas. Perry is getting it in the neck for subsiding immigrants kids, Gingrich is having to backpeddle on any mention of climate change, Romney has flip flopped on the abortion issue too many times to mention.
Obama will win because the GOP have gak for brains. And it's a crying shame, because I don't want Obama to win.
My thoughts exactly.
Being a wee child of 23, I'm curious. Has there ever been an election of this sort before? As in where one guy you don't want to win will win because all the other candidates are on and off crazy?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Necroshea, it has happened before Bush Vs Gore and Bush Vs Kerry.
No it didn't.
Bush won for a number of reasons, not because Kerry and Gore were batgak crazy. In fact, a lot of people thought that either of them would have made a good president. Particularly those who voted for them.
Obama won in '08 due to a number of reasons, one of the biggest was the perception that McCain was too close, politically, to Bush.
I'll probably vote for the Republican nominee, unless somehow Ron Paul pulls it out. Then I'll probably not vote for a presidential candidate. There's no way I would vote for Obama, even if he were the preferable choice, because of how he (and the DNC in general) interpreted his 53-47 win over McCain as a 'mandate' to do whatever the hell he wanted. A wider margin would only serve to further inflate his ego.
Not Obama....after that I could probably care less who gets elected (unless they are more Govt. Control/giving money we don't have to those who don't deserve it)
biccat wrote:There's no way I would vote for Obama, even if he were the preferable choice, because of how he (and the DNC in general) interpreted his 53-47 win over McCain as a 'mandate' to do whatever the hell he wanted.
That's essentially what victory in a Presidential election entails, regardless of margin.
There are, of course, measures in place to check the power of the Executive, but putting someone in that office is tacit to granting them the mandate to use its power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:
That, and he was a freaking clown
The only thing McCain had going for him was his POW sympathy card.
I don't think McCain was a clown, his campaign was simply run very poorly.
biccat wrote:
Obama won in '08 due to a number of reasons, one of the biggest was the perception that McCain was too close, politically, to Bush.
That, and he was a freaking clown
The only thing McCain had going for him was his POW sympathy card.
McCain certainly wasn't a clown. He was an experienced politician who has a history of bipartisan compromise. Instead, he was painted as a far-right conservative and Obama, one of the most liberal Senators during his brief stint, was suggested to be the moderate in the race.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:A Republican win would be a disaster - all the candidates running should be locked in an Alaskan log cabin and forced to listen to Cliff Richard - they deserve no less
A Republican win will only produce significant change (disastrous or otherwise) if they also carry a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, which doesn't appear likely.
Additionally, the right Republican would need to be elected in order for anything material to be done. Romney, for example, is not likely to produce the same results as Gingrich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Instead, he was painted as a far-right conservative...
He was painted as Bush 3, which isn't necessarily the same thing as being a far-right conservative.
Then he picked Palin, and he was painted as "The guy that picked the hockey mom."
biccat wrote:
Obama won in '08 due to a number of reasons, one of the biggest was the perception that McCain was too close, politically, to Bush.
That, and he was a freaking clown
The only thing McCain had going for him was his POW sympathy card.
McCain certainly wasn't a clown. He was an experienced politician who has a history of bipartisan compromise. Instead, he was painted as a far-right conservative and Obama, one of the most liberal Senators during his brief stint, was suggested to be the moderate in the race.
What makes you think McCain was a clown?
His policies weren't that far out, and he's been pretty good at making compromises, as far as I've seen. He wouldn't have been a 'terrible' president, but running with Palin made me think he was a clown more than anything.
His demeanor struck me as odd, and he seemed literally devoid of emotion in a lot of video I say around that time. Plus, it seemed like he had problems with simple things like walking around and shaking hands. Franklin Roosevelt was handicapped too, so not saying that's a make or break thing.
I didn't mind him as a person, but again, I thought Palin was the nail in the coffin for him.
dogma wrote:That, and the gaffe about the economy. It was his "No new taxes!"
True enough old boy, but seriously.. The average dullard doesn't spend as much time reading about politics as us forum nerds do. Matt Damon all over the TV calling her a slow has more of an effect on Joe Public than his silly economical gaffes.
They just see the really really loud, really really obnoxious, really really in your face ridiculous gak.
And that bitch, is ridiculous gak personified.
I was rooting for JM, and I had my dem missus ready and willing to vote for him... until the creature showed up!
Training rifle thing, I think. Has a cord coming out of it. At a lot of conventions and such, the military has like a mil-sim training thing. Probably what this is.
I used one of them at a navy convention in annapolis.
It would be a trajedy if you guys got four more years of Obama simply because they cant find an alternative out of an eligible electorate of about 150 million people.
Orlanth wrote:It would be a trajedy if you guys got four more years of Obama simply because they cant find an alternative out of an eligible electorate of about 150 million people.
Also true. Just because no one's stepped into the race doesn't mean we should give up and resign to voting for obama, haha.
It's a trainer, probably from or related to the EST 2000. If it is it's a full weight weapon. She still looks scared of it, pansy. Before anyone dredges up another one I'm just going to troll it too; I hate Palin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Saw a tabloid cover this week that said Bill was begging Hilary to oppose Obama, I bet she could win too especially with Bill as a VP. Politically speaking they are a strong pair, and Bill's already been dragged through the mud.
AustonT wrote:Yeah no one from the NRA would vote for a woman holding a Crossman, GET A REAL GUN B*+€#
You know that's a photoshopped picture, right?
I don't think Palin doomed McCain very much. After all, Obama got away with Biden, a man legendary for his failures and gaffes.
Oh clearly a Half-term Gov. is much better than a Sen with yrs. of service.
Sure, he walks all over it. but he's a politician. Capable of leadership. Not
just an empty head waiting to be told what to say/think/do next. You betcha!
Edit:
I should have said 'legislator' instead of 'politician'.
AustonT wrote: Before anyone dredges up another one I'm just going to troll it too; I hate Palin.
There are very few politicians that I hate, but she is one of them.
Though I would enjoy the antics of a Palin/Bachmann ticket.
AustonT wrote:
Saw a tabloid cover this week that said Bill was begging Hilary to oppose Obama, I bet she could win too especially with Bill as a VP. Politically speaking they are a strong pair, and Bill's already been dragged through the mud.
biccat wrote:I don't think Palin doomed McCain very much. After all, Obama got away with Biden, a man legendary for his failures and gaffes.
There was a decline in McCain approval following his selection Palin, followed by a decline after her first three major interviews.
She was also gaffe prone, and adopted a style of political discourse that is easily mocked for being gaffe prone. You can't be an everyman and make mistakes if you want to be an exceptional everyman.
Wardragoon wrote:Not Obama....after that I could probably care less who gets elected (unless they are more Govt. Control/giving money we don't have to those who don't deserve it)
So you're supporting neither party?
Democrats want more government control over business so that they can push for equality of opportunity, and will give a lot of money (in various forms) to individuals who many argue don't deserve it in order to cater to those voting blocks, and they're definitely for expanding government in agenearl.
Republicans want more government control so that they can push their worldview on others, and will give a lot of money (in various forms) to big businesses who definitely don't deserve it because they're strong corporate donors, and they're all for huge expansion of government as long as the expansion has to do with the military.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:It would be a trajedy if you guys got four more years of Obama simply because they cant find an alternative out of an eligible electorate of about 150 million people.
That's the thing.
The overwhelming majority of people cannot successfully run. And the ones that do have to contend with the extremists in their party, on both sides, to get nominated.
Hopefully Obama, the Republican candidates are all flying rodent gak and the extreme right has a disproportionate control over the party as a whole.
I'd not be averse to Huntsman, he seems educated and savvy, but that rules out his chances of being put forward as the candidate. He believes in evolution, so his chances are extremely slim...
I think presidents have always catered to the extremists, to a degree. Take Andrew Jackson for example. Totally insane, and he really drove the whole 'manifest destiny' thing home to the people. I'm willing to bet there were plenty of people who could've cared less about exploring and colonizing the west at the time.
History proves that if your insane, you'll be written down in a book and remembered for a long time
Doesn't mean it's right, of course. But it's just something I've noticed.
biccat wrote:I don't think Palin doomed McCain very much. After all, Obama got away with Biden, a man legendary for his failures and gaffes.
There was a decline in McCain approval following his selection Palin, followed by a decline after her first three major interviews.
She was also gaffe prone, and adopted a style of political discourse that is easily mocked for being gaffe prone. You can't be an everyman and make mistakes if you want to be an exceptional everyman.
Also, Biden kept his mouth shut until after he was elected, then America simultaneously face-palmed
Squidmanlolz wrote:Mitt Romney is the clear candidate, the only problem is Obama's greater charisma, we've had Obama for 4 years, very little, if anything, has improved.
A lot of the things Obama's done have been low key.
For example, the federal government (by executive order) now pays benefits to an employee who is in a homosexual relationship instead of only heterosexual ones.
Squidmanlolz wrote:Mitt Romney is the clear candidate, the only problem is Obama's greater charisma, we've had Obama for 4 years, very little, if anything, has improved.
That's an opinion that the conservative agenda is forcing down everyone's throats. Don't believe it. There's plenty Obama's done, the right just wants to portray him as a worthless piece of garbage who hasn't done anything good.
Just a quick glance through, and I've found several positive things. Sure, there are some negatives, but overall, he's turned about better then ol' Bushie, in my opinion.
Melissia, your link is way better. Also, you type too fast.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I think presidents have always catered to the extremists, to a degree. Take Andrew Jackson for example. Totally insane, and he really drove the whole 'manifest destiny' thing home to the people. I'm willing to bet there were plenty of people who could've cared less about exploring and colonizing the west at the time.
History proves that if your insane, you'll be written down in a book and remembered for a long time
Doesn't mean it's right, of course. But it's just something I've noticed.
Andrew Jackson lived back when Nationalism was enough to force wars, I mean we were fighting people just for the hell of it pretty much up until WWI and nobody had a major problem with it. The Texas revolution was a war started by civilians, then the US government caught on, the civilians had enough national pride to just start a war because they could. I don't remember hearing of any modern government backing up it's radical residents and invading another country.
The idea that Obama hasn't accomplished anything is false. He's accomplished quite a few things, it's just that the media's mostly given attention to the big projects which invariably are also the ones (because of said media attention) that the Republicans oppose the strongest (even if Obama was trying to implement a Republican idea).
Squidmanlolz wrote:
Also, Biden kept his mouth shut until after he was elected, then America simultaneously face-palmed
When it really counts (elections, key issue debates, etc.) Biden can hold it together and when he doesn't, he mistakes tend to be fairly standard gaffe territory (mispronunciations, incorrect names, etc.).
Palin, on the other hand, would make critical, and almost comical errors. For example, her infamous line about being able to see Russia would have been a perfect dose of levity into a clearly charged interview, had it been delivered as a joke.
I'm not fond of the idea that she's stupid, because I don't think she really is. She is, in my opinion, an average person who is much of what she claims to be. The problem was that you cannot pick average people to be your VP candidate, because the stresses of the (especially that) campaign are extraordinary.
Squidmanlolz wrote:
Also, Biden kept his mouth shut until after he was elected, then America simultaneously face-palmed
When it really counts (elections, key issue debates, etc.) Biden can hold it together and when he doesn't, he mistakes tend to be fairly standard gaffe territory (mispronunciations, incorrect names, etc.).
Palin, on the other hand, would make critical, and almost comical errors. For example, her infamous line about being able to see Russia would have been a perfect dose of levity into a clearly charged interview, had it been delivered as a joke.
I'm not fond of the idea that she's stupid, because I don't think she really is. She is, in my opinion, an average person who is much of what she claims to be. The problem was that you cannot pick average people to be your VP candidate, because the stresses of the (especially that) campaign are extraordinary.
This.
And i'll repeat what i said earlier. She is a good Mouthpiece(if you like that mesage!). She is just that. She couldn't be told how to answer in her interviews. Only how to try to put out the fire she'd already started due to the interviews. Why would anyone who wanted to REALLY be VP or even President, QUIT half way through her term as Gov.? The drama from her lawsuits was alot of BS. She wanted to earn money. period.
alarmingrick wrote:Oh clearly a Half-term Gov. is much better than a Sen with yrs. of service.
I always appreciate the "half-term" argument, or really anything that attacks Palin on the basis of experience.
How did that argument not apply to Obama in '08?
'12 is, of course, a different story, because the O will have nearly 4 years of experience in the office. Well, maybe 2 years, taking time off for vacations, golf, and the like.
Anyone got a primary source for Presidential vacation days? I'd like to get a total for Obama so far. And I'd like to get a more direct source than CBS for the 1020 days on vacation figure I'm getting for W.
alarmingrick wrote:Oh clearly a Half-term Gov. is much better than a Sen with yrs. of service.
I always appreciate the "half-term" argument, or really anything that attacks Palin on the basis of experience.
How did that argument not apply to Obama in '08?
'12 is, of course, a different story, because the O will have nearly 4 years of experience in the office. Well, maybe 2 years, taking time off for vacations, golf, and the like.
Methinks you miss my point. I'm not attacking her over experience. Not at all. I'm attacking her over the fact she quit. I prefer my world leaders to stand a little stronger.
Do the time in a job, and see it through. And not so willing to follow the scent of her chance at personal wealth over doing what's right for the country (or state) she swore
to serve.
biccat wrote:
I always appreciate the "half-term" argument, or really anything that attacks Palin on the basis of experience.
While the "half-term" argument could, and has been, construed as one related to experience it mostly relates to being unable to manage staying in office in the thriving, metropolitan state of Alaska.
biccat wrote:
'12 is, of course, a different story, because the O will have nearly 4 years of experience in the office. Well, maybe 2 years, taking time off for vacations, golf, and the like.
I see we're scraping the bottom of the wit barrel.
Mannahnin wrote:
Anyone got a primary source for Presidential vacation days? I'd like to get a total for Obama so far. And I'd like to get a more direct source than CBS for the 1020 days on vacation figure I'm getting for W.
Well, the thing is, Presidents don't really take vacations. Or, rather, they don't take them in any conventional sense. The total "vacation days" for any given President are essentially just "days spent away from Washington". Back in the day that used to mean something, but with modern telecom its just a talking point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Say what you like about Palin, at least she's hot.
Mannahnin wrote:Anyone got a primary source for Presidential vacation days? I'd like to get a total for Obama so far. And I'd like to get a more direct source than CBS for the 1020 days on vacation figure I'm getting for W.
Well, the thing is, Presidents don't really take vacations. Or, rather, they don't take them in any conventional sense. The total "vacation days" for any given President are essentially just "days spent away from Washington". Back in the day that used to mean something, but with modern telecom its just a talking point.
True. Even when they're away, of course they're connected in and still getting briefings, etc. Presumably, however, when one is on the golf course or cutting brush, one is not putting in AS MUCH work as they do at the office.
Albatross wrote:
dogma wrote:
Albatross wrote:Say what you like about Palin, at least she's hot.
That's news to me.
I'd like to take her out for a nice chicken dinner. And then feth her.
Surely just for the sake of the story and who she is, though? Not for her looks.
CBS is about as reliable a source as you'll get, though as I'm not aware of any officially published count of days the President spends out of office.
Truthfully, news agencies are likely the best positioned groups to have access to such knowledge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I still don't quite grasp the denial of how Palin dashed McCain's chances, even in the face of all the evidence, both practical and anecdotal.
Huntsman all the way. Too bad he is too sane and intelligent for the Republican party's nomination. It really is baffling when a guy like him, with the long and successful history of public service he has is ignored almost completely. Not only was he a successful and well liked Governor in Utah, where he fixed the tax code, balanced budgets and created jobs. He also served as ambassador to China, you know a country who our relationship with is kind of important. His resume and record are above and beyond that of Obama and every other Republican in the race.
Ahtman wrote:I still don't quite grasp the denial of how Palin dashed McCain's chances, even in the face of all the evidence, both practical and anecdotal.
Oh I do.
They secretly love her. She may be an absolute total utter feth wit, but she proper loves her some Jesus, and that's enough.
Just look at biccat sticking up for her..
biccat wrote:
I don't think Palin doomed McCain very much. After all, Obama got away with Biden, a man legendary for his failures and gaffes.
She quite clearly and obviously did. It's an irrefutable fact. Look at all of the evidence!? Ask some Republicans?!
I saw literally tens of TV republicans (I was living in CA the months leading up the big O's election) coming on and saying "I have voted Republican my whole life, but I cant in good conscience do so now that Sarah Palin is one 72 year old man's heartbeat away from the most powerful seat in the country"
I don't find any US politician utterly vile other than that woman. She is an absolute joke, and I am stunned that anybody can be so partisan they wont admit it. I'm a true blue Tory and I can admit when I dislike one of their MP's. But who on earth can possibly hold a candle to her?!
I loathe Peter Mandleson, but I would rather give him the nuclear codes (and a reach around) than let Sarah Palin through fething customs!
alarmingrick wrote:Methinks you miss my point. I'm not attacking her over experience. Not at all. I'm attacking her over the fact she quit. I prefer my world leaders to stand a little stronger.
Do the time in a job, and see it through.
Is it acceptable then to quit a job in the Senate midway through?
mattyrm wrote: They secretly love her. She may be an absolute total utter feth wit, but she proper loves her some Jesus, and that's enough.
Just look at biccat sticking up for her..
People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life. Now he's dragging us down with him and even intelligent people continue to support him, simply because he's not a Republican.
Presumably you also have a problem with people supporting the "absolute total utter feth wit" currently occupying the White House.
And honestly, I don't like Palin because of her religious beliefs, her post-election activities have shown that she's a pretty smart and savvy woman. You may disagree, but then you're apparently predisposed to hate her. 'Cause she's a Republican ya know.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:Huntsman all the way. Too bad he is too sane and intelligent for the Republican party's nomination. It really is baffling when a guy like him, with the long and successful history of public service he has is ignored almost completely. Not only was he a successful and well liked Governor in Utah, where he fixed the tax code, balanced budgets and created jobs. He also served as ambassador to China, you know a country who our relationship with is kind of important. His resume and record are above and beyond that of Obama and every other Republican in the race.
I'm almost completely with you on this one. I've been puzzled at the complete lack of traction Huntsman has gotten in anything (based on his merits), and I was hopeful that the Iowa Caucaus would be his kingmaker moment.
Ron Paul is an unelectable, sour old man. He's a doom sayer, and if elected will be an octagenarian before his term is out. That's troubling to anyone.
Bachmann is Diet Palin; a GOP bumper sticker that simply spouts the "party line". I honestly don't think she's ever had an original idea. The only one I could argue was her brilliant plan to address the US debt crisis by prioritizing and paying off the interest on the "worst" debt first. May as well just throw a bucket of chum into a fish sanctuary for all the comfort that provides to the markets.
Gingrich I actually kinda like, in that visceral 'I know I shouldn't but that just makes me even more' kind of way. His baggage makes him a ticking timebomb however, and Obama's charisma is exactly the sort of trigger that can set it off. I think he could do quite well as President, but don't think he can get elected.
Santorum I despise. I could be persuaded to base judgment on merit, but I see nothing meritous to give him lift.
If I judge Perry by how well Texas has done in recent years, I like him, but I can't get over how badly he projects himself publicly. I don't think that such an imbecilic persona can beat Obama.
And Romney is Romney. He's a Massachusetts moderate, which means he's compromised a LOT in his past, and that compromise makes him vulnerable in an election. Honestly I don't have too much of an issue with that, but I think the tone is being set that Romney is the new Gore/Kerry; the guy you toss in because you don't have any better guys. Didn't work for Gore or Kerry, don't see why it suddenly turns now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life. Now he's dragging us down with him and even intelligent people continue to support him, simply because he's not a Republican.
Obama's foreign affairs record is actually pretty good, I think. Osama is boom-headshot, and I think... half a dozen other high-ranking al-Qaeda officers have also received the magic carpet ride to Allah. US response to Somalian hijacking was good, and I think we've extracted ourselves from the prolonged Middle East wars without losing face globally. If he could figure out how to negotiate with China instead of making demands and accusations, I'd call him a pretty good foreign relations kinda guy.
But on domestic policy, he'd be right at home with Maxine Waters in the EU. He simply "doesn't get" the economy.
biccat wrote:People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life.
He's been better for small businesses than Bush was. He's been the most friendly to homosexuals in the history of US presidential administrations. He's tried to help those with a Southern American interest, and has done a lot for Cuban Americans in particular. He's done a lot for womens' rights causes, and for students, for Americans with disabilities, for transparency, and he's done a fethton for credit cardholders, and put in regulations to ensure that all lenders must verify credit history/income/employment status so that the crash doesn't happen so easily again. He's appointed the first Chief Technology Officer, whose office oversees aspects of technology and science in various government organizations (and reforms them when they do not meet standards)-- much like a CTO in a business I should note, making it so that Obama's running his government more like a business than the average Republican would. He's put in necessary regulation to allow stockholders to vote on executive pay, and prevented banks from proprietary trading which often screws over the customer.
Really, Obama's done more to fulfill his campaign promises than the majority of politicians (rep OR dem) even bother TRYING to do.
Melissia wrote:He's been better for small businesses than Bush was.
Er, no. The changes to healthcare will definitely cost small businesses a lot of money. He's given a tax cut here and there, but nothing that will match this elephant in the corner. Regardless of ethics of healthcare provision, in isolation this will reduce the profits of small businesses. This is why there's been so much hullabaloo over Obamacare. The seeds have been planted that could yield cost savings over longer term (greater cooperation between doctors, technology, and a larger participant pool lowering premium costs) but over the short term costs will definitely go up.
He's appointed the first Chief Technology Officer, whose office oversees aspects of technology and science in various government organizations (and reforms them when they do not meet standards)-- much like a CTO in a business I should note, making it so that Obama's running his government more like a business than the average Republican would.
Obama most defniitely does not run the government like a business. This is actually one of the big criticisms of his administration--that he doesn't "get" business or the economy. His advisory panel has had very few people with practical experience in business. Most came from incredibly strong academic backgrounds which makes them strong on theory and macro-level policy, but he's done more to build an administrative ivory tower than a functioning back office.
sourclams wrote:Obama's foreign affairs record is actually pretty good, I think. Osama is boom-headshot, and I think... half a dozen other high-ranking al-Qaeda officers have also received the magic carpet ride to Allah. US response to Somalian hijacking was good, and I think we've extracted ourselves from the prolonged Middle East wars without losing face globally. If he could figure out how to negotiate with China instead of making demands and accusations, I'd call him a pretty good foreign relations kinda guy.
I don't dispute that he's had a few great moments in foreign policy. Osama, Al-Awlaki, Ghadaffi, he's hit the big headlines with those and it helps him greatly.
However, Libya and Egypt are yet to-be-determined and his inaction in Syria (which is forgivable only if you ignore the reasoning that led to intervention in Libya) is a problem. Further, his handling of Iran and Pakistan has been pretty damn poor. And his treatment of Europe hasn't been very good, particularly given his campaign rhetoric.
I figure he's around a C in terms of foreign policy. He's got a few successes, but his flubs more than make up for them. His biggest successes will be expansion of the air war into Pakistan and ousting Ghadaffi. His biggest failures are pissing off Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and Israel.
I think he's better than a C--I'd give him a B- at worst just because he has had so much success with the big headlines. The Middle Eastern shithole is still a Middle Eastern shithole and finally we're getting out. I don't see a way to meaningfully improve relations with Iran other than conceding every single time, and I think we're in a better position now to stand up to Iran in particular. The Keystone Pipeline could have been a meaningful statement that the US does not need what Iran is offering, but he did drop the ball on that one (this thing is being built to either us or China, and there's already 3 other pipelines that run through that aquifer in Nebraska).
mattyrm wrote:I loathe Peter Mandleson, but I would rather give him the nuclear codes (and a reach around) than let Sarah Palin through fething customs!
Hear that Sara Palin: He won't let you in his country but he came here to steal our women!
sourclams wrote:Er, no. The changes to healthcare will definitely cost small businesses a lot of money.
They were countered by tax credits and other benefits to small businesses, not merely a "tax cut here and there", although Republicans have done their part to try to minimize any benefit the small business has (as usual).
sourclams wrote:Obama most defniitely does not run the government like a business.
Neither does anyone else in politics, but he's still doing a better job than them.
sourclams wrote:Er, no. The changes to healthcare will definitely cost small businesses a lot of money.
They were countered by tax credits and other benefits to small businesses, not merely a "tax cut here and there", although Republicans have done their part to try to minimize any benefit the small business has (as usual).
The costs are not offset by the tax breaks. That it costs small businesses in the short term isn't really arguable.
sourclams wrote:Neither does anyone else in politics, but he's still doing a better job than them.
In what way? Costs are up (greater spending), revenues are down (reduced tax receipts as a result of recession and contraction of the financial sector), and "consumer confidence" in government is at an all-time low (congressional deadlock, inability of Obama/Boehner/Tea Party to create consensus). I can't think of a single business-related metric that would have this administration looking good.
I agree that Obama's done some good things, but maintaining a balance sheet and fostering positive relationships with business are not among them.
mattyrm wrote: I don't find any US politician utterly vile other than that woman. She is an absolute joke, and I am stunned that anybody can be so partisan they wont admit it. I'm a true blue Tory and I can admit when I dislike one of their MP's. But who on earth can possibly hold a candle to her?!
I loathe Peter Mandleson, but I would rather give him the nuclear codes (and a reach around) than let Sarah Palin through fething customs!
I think you were supposed to pick a Tory you didn't like. Are you having problems distinguishing between New Laborites and Tories? It's a common problem.
So, the government of the USA is effectively in lockdown for most of 2012 due to the election and/or Obama and the Republicans unable to compromise.
Obama will win, not because he is any good, but because his opponents are a collection of crackpots and racists...
The state of the right-wing in America was pretty much summed up by that mad woman who said she wasn't a witch in a campaign video. Who was that again?
That was pretty surreal.
In the unlikely event of a Republican wing, what would people get? Tax breaks for billionaires and a section of society that claims to hate too much government happy to bend over for more blanket restrictions on liberty and defence spending in the name of national security.
4 more years of Obama is likely to see more of the same, with unemployment rising and a credit rating downgrade..
I wish I could sit here smugly in the UK, but our political class is just as shambolic and spineless as those in DC.
Not the "changeling" that he claimed to be, but I think he's done alright. Then again, my expectations were modest even when he was campaigning. Ending our Occupation is Iraq was a big step, and I think he did a good job.
Unemployment is a big issue that doesn't necessarily fix itself in a single presidential term, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect his administration to do anything but lay some pieces in the right places.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Unemployment is a big issue that doesn't necessarily fix itself in a single presidential term, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect his administration to do anything but lay some pieces in the right places.
This is largely what the business community takes issue with. When you look at the forward projections, the expectation into 2012 is for further tepid growth with relatively high unemployment.
Obama has done very little to assuage the business sector that it won't bear the brunt of the cost behind his social programs, has been very bad at creating bipartisan solutions with Tea Party Republicans, and has allowed the can on the US deficit to be continuously kicked indefinitely, with no certainty whatsoever that the US bond market isn't building up to one heckuva bubble-perhaps the biggest of all.
biccat wrote:
Presumably you also have a problem with people supporting the "absolute total utter feth wit" currently occupying the White House.
And honestly, I don't like Palin because of her religious beliefs, her post-election activities have shown that she's a pretty smart and savvy woman. You may disagree, but then you're apparently predisposed to hate her. 'Cause she's a Republican ya know.
Mate, you called me a socialist about 6 months back, now your saying I hate Republicans, do you only read what I type directly at you?!
I told you, I had my dem missus ready to vote for McCain! I wanted John to win hands down over Obama until he picked the moose machine gunner with cerebral palsy, and as my missus was a big fan of Hilary, she said she was happy to vote for my pal JM.
I absolutely don't dislike Republicans at all, and I'm more right leaning than left leaning. I am no big fan of Obama care, and I am more than happy to agree with Republicans when they make sense, I just really really really hate Religious numbskulls, and that one singular fact is driving me away from them. This article explains it perfectly. I wont ask you read it all, here is the meat.
Optimists will point out that the Republicans, no less than the Democrats, tend to flirt with extremes in the primaries, then select an electable moderate (with Mr Romney being the likely winner this time). Gone are the days when a smiling Reagan could be forgiven for raising taxes and ignoring abortion once in office. As the Republican base has become ever more detached from the mainstream, its list of unconditional demands has become ever more stringent.
Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it, that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.
These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney). Several promisingly pragmatic governors, including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, never even sought the nomination. Jon Huntsman, the closest thing to a moderate in the race (who supports gay marriage and action to combat climate change), is polling in low single figures.
I liked RR, i liked George HW Bush, I actually kinda liked Nixon except for the whole ridiculous racism thing, and Bush Junior I even stuck up for, because I think the guy wasn't half as stupid, or as bad as people try to paint him as.. but seriously. I draw the line with fethers like Palin and Bachman, and dolts like them and the people that love them are the ones that Romney, Gingrich and Perry are bending over backwards for. I dont believe for a second that they think half of the gak that they say they do. But that's politics, Gingrich has backed away from climate change, Romney clearly agrees with abortion but swears he doesn't, and I very much doubt that anyone smart enough to get near the top of the tree is actually ignorant enough to think that the earth is 6000 years old, but they wont admit it because it annoys people at the fringe, and when they wont admit it, they lose people like me.
The fact that you think I (and presumably every other person that leans towards Republican but shy's away at the last and votes for an independent because they just wont lay off the Jesus juice) is "a democrat" just shows that you really can't see the forest for the trees. The problem isn't us, its them!
I really have no time for the Democrats. I'm centre right, but most definitely right. I like drinking with my buddies from Oklahoma, hunting, small governments, less social security, more "man the feth up and look after yourself!".
But seriously.. I really really really hate these "new" fatwa following Republicans. Its the republicans fault they arent getting votes! It's not because everyone is a closet democrat. I really really hate them. And thus, we arrive at the point. I lean Republican, but I hate the fringe that the candidates are bowing to more than I hate the democrats.
I hate them more than an entire elevator full of effete, hipsters who like to save the whales. Electric car driving, dont have the death penalty and send them to outreach camps, tofu and wheat-free cake eating pinko Democrats that I used to really really hate.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Unemployment is a big issue that doesn't necessarily fix itself in a single presidential term, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect his administration to do anything but lay some pieces in the right places.
This is largely what the business community takes issue with. When you look at the forward projections, the expectation into 2012 is for further tepid growth with relatively high unemployment.
Obama has done very little to assuage the business sector that it won't bear the brunt of the cost behind his social programs, has been very bad at creating bipartisan solutions with Tea Party Republicans, and has allowed the can on the US deficit to be continuously kicked indefinitely, with no certainty whatsoever that the US bond market isn't building up to one heckuva bubble-perhaps the biggest of all.
Every business owner with whom I've discussed healthcare costs realized they had been growing untenable for a couple of decades, and the Republicans were doing absolutely nothing about it, and that was the main reason some of them supported Obama. Health care reform is absolutely critical and central to the health of the economy, to reduce the massively-spiraling costs. IMO the primary failures of the enacted HCR are that it actually doesn't go far enough. Too much time was wasted and too many good ideas and important elements (like a public option) cut out in misguided attempts to compromise with deeply misguided Conservatives incapable of recognizing the problem and/or too partisan to contribute anything to the process other than attempts to tear the whole thing down.
We specifically elected Obama in part because he promised to bring us healthcare reform. That was one of his mandates. He repeatedly promised that (for example) a public option was part of that, and that's part of what helped win him the debates against McCain. The he compromised way too much out of what turned out to be a sadly too-optimistic belief in bipartisanship, and let it get watered down and weakened.
The toughest part of Obama's election is going to be trying to prove something that DIDN'T happen. When he took the wheel the country was speeding towards a cliff. Specifically in terms of unemployment and the economy. The fact that he and the Dems managed to steer us away from the cliff (a full-blown Depression) is an achievement. But it's hard to show to the average voter how it could have been much worse than it has been.
sourclams wrote:The costs are not offset by the tax breaks. That it costs small businesses in the short term isn't really arguable.
Yes, it costs them, with the costs largely offset by tax credits, exemptions, etc.
Hell, he even made it so that individual states decide on what must be covered, rather than the federal government, which was something the SBA was pushing for, and amusingly enough provides more for state rights than any Republican suggestion on the topic.
Obama's also pushed for tax breaks and credits and exemptions for small business (which was very strongly opposed by Republicans), and he's pushed for regulation changes that make it easier for small businesses to gain new capital (which was again opposed by Republicans and had to get some cuts), and he's been working with the SBA to fight the problem of unemployed combat veterans (which was meekly opposed by Republicans), and he supported "Small Business Saturday" (which was initialized by American Express, oddly enough, but both Obama and the SBA threw their support behind it). The SBA has supported Obama's American Jobs Act (which didn't make it through the senate), as well as throwing some support behind Obama's proposed law that would make it so business can't discriminate against those who are unemployed (as is currently the norm),
Really, Obama's done or at least tried to do more for small business in four years than the Republican party has done in the last decade. When Bush was in power, they almost ignored the SBA, and if the current budget for the SBA goes in place it'll be the highest budget it's ever gotten barring stimulus package money.
mattyrm wrote: Mate, you called me a socialist about 6 months back, now your saying I hate Republicans, do you only read what I type directly at you?!
No, I stand by my position that you like certain socialist policies. Because you do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to deny it.
Besides, as Time says, we're all socialists now.
mattyrm wrote: I told you, I had my dem missus ready to vote for McCain! I wanted John to win hands down over Obama until he picked the moose machine gunner with cerebral palsy, and as my missus was a big fan of Hilary, she said she was happy to vote for my pal JM.
And yet you were happy to have Obama win rather than have "the moose machine gunner with cerebral palsy" as vice president. A position that carries with it somewhere between 0 and lim 0 actual authority.
mattyrm wrote: I absolutely don't dislike Republicans at all, and I'm more right leaning than left leaning. I am no big fan of Obama care, and I am more than happy to agree with Republicans when they make sense, I just really really really hate Religious numbskulls, and that one singular fact is driving me away from them. This article explains it perfectly. I wont ask you read it all, here is the meat.
You're continuing to associate Republicans with "Religious numbskulls." You hate people who believe anything other than you, I get it. But I'm not sure why you continue to refuse to apply that standard to the left.
Well, no, that's not entirely true. I do know why you don't. It's because you're a liberal, and you support liberal politicians.
Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it, that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.
I'm not sure what's so objectionable about these positions. They're simply the opposite of left-wing positions. I could come up with a laundry list of must-haves for Democrat politicians, but, like this list, it wouldn't make the point the author wants to make.
Put simply: according to this author, liberals are moderates and the only way for a Republican to be a moderate is to accept the left-wing position on some issues.
Do Republican primary voters want the "perfect" candidate who can check off all the right boxes? Of course. So do Democrats. Look at the '08 election. Hillary's big problem was that she supported the war in Iraq. Liberal voters want a liberal candidate. Conservative voters want a conservative candidate.
mattyrm wrote: The fact that you think I (and presumably every other person that leans towards Republican but shy's away at the last and votes for an independent because they just wont lay off the Jesus juice) is "a democrat" just shows that you really can't see the forest for the trees. The problem isn't us, its them!
You're right, the problem is "them." The Republican party has been pretty solidly in the "right" for the last 30 years or so. They've made an overt play for religious people, but it's certainly not something new. In fact, I suspect you support the Democrats not because the Republicans have moved towards religion, but rather because the Democrats have moved away from it.
mattyrm wrote:I lean Republican, but I hate the fringe that the candidates are bowing to more than I hate the democrats.
So you're going to hate the Republican fringe, but continue to ignore the Democrat fringe? Honestly, if you find yourself more in agreement with the fringe of the DNC than the center of the RNC, you're not going to be missed.
I look at the political parties and realize that the Republicans represent freedom and the Democrats slavery (well, they always have). Even if I disagree with some aspects of the Republican party I'm still so far from the Democrats that they're simply not an option.
alarmingrick wrote:Methinks you miss my point. I'm not attacking her over experience. Not at all. I'm attacking her over the fact she quit. I prefer my world leaders to stand a little stronger.
Do the time in a job, and see it through.
Is it acceptable then to quit a job in the Senate midway through?
To become President? sure. To go do a reality show, and makes tons of money for herself, no. Not until the obligation you swore to is done.
biccat wrote:
mattyrm wrote: They secretly love her. She may be an absolute total utter feth wit, but she proper loves her some Jesus, and that's enough.
Just look at biccat sticking up for her..
People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life.
That's what secretly makes me laugh about you folks so hard. He can't be a failure as President. It has to be every aspect of his life!
mattyrm wrote: They secretly love her. She may be an absolute total utter feth wit, but she proper loves her some Jesus, and that's enough.
Just look at biccat sticking up for her..
People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life.
That's what secretly makes me laugh about you folks so hard. He can't be a failure as President. It has to be every aspect of his life!
When one encounters a person with whom one has such massive and numerous differences of opinion about the world, it's often challenging to try to figure out how to bridge that gap and have a useful exchange of ideas. At some points the differences of worldview are so fundamental that a person wonders if he or the other guys is crazy, or deliberately sabotaging their own ability to process and understand the world. Comments like this are always a nice self-satisfying reassurance, but are still tragic.
biccat wrote:
However, Libya and Egypt are yet to-be-determined and his inaction in Syria (which is forgivable only if you ignore the reasoning that led to intervention in Libya) is a problem.
This speaks to how deeply ignorant of foreign policy you truly are.
Committing to Syria militarily would have been a disaster. One, Assad has the explicit support of the military, Gaddafi did not. Two, any significant crisis in Syria directly threatens Israel (note our position regarding Egypt). Three, there was no significant, international support for intervention in Syria.
biccat wrote:
Further, his handling of Iran and Pakistan has been pretty damn poor.
I think he's done quite well with Iran in maintaining a status quo position that implicitly favors the US. He's also done fairly well with Pakistan for essentially the same reason.
biccat wrote:
His biggest successes will be expansion of the air war into Pakistan and ousting Ghadaffi. His biggest failures are pissing off Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and Israel.
You cannot claim pissing of Pakistan as a failure, while also counting expanding the air war into Pakistan as a success (which was a continuation of Bush policy). They're intimately linked, and if one is a failure, then they are both failures.
Honestly, your post, along with several others you have made in this thread, reads as little more than an emotional screed.
biccat wrote:People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life.
That's what secretly makes me laugh about you folks so hard. He can't be a failure as President. It has to be every aspect of his life!
He's a failure as a President, which is the only aspect I care about.
His wife is pretty good looking and he apparently knows enough to father two beautiful children. So I guess he deserves credit for that.
Good job Barry, you can have sex.
I guess he's pretty good at golfing too. He at least does it a lot. It's hard not to be good when you play 30 rounds a year.
Is it racism that would cause a person to focus on sex and sports as his only achievements? To disregard his academic and electoral successes? I can't figure it out. How about your choice to ignore and fail to engage every post Melissia's made in the last 24hrs enumerating and listing his accomplishments as President? What's the meaning behind that?
And what is it that causes you to keep making this remark about his time off, when this was just discussed and a) it was pointed out that Presidential "vacation" time is substiantially spent working anyway, and b) the numbers for his time away from the office are not particularly high?
Mannahnin wrote:How about your choice to ignore and fail to engage every post Melissia's made in the last 24hrs enumerating and listing his accomplishments as President? What's the meaning behind that?
I believe the word is "ideologue".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
And honestly, I don't like Palin because of her religious beliefs, her post-election activities have shown that she's a pretty smart and savvy woman. You may disagree, but then you're apparently predisposed to hate her. 'Cause she's a Republican ya know.
Have you seen her approval rating? A savvy woman doesn't tank while running on the flavor of the month ticket.
I guess you could blame that on her being a Republican, but that's roughly equivalent to claiming people don't like Obama because they're big old racist meanies; especially considering that the current climate favors many of the values Republicans (Palin in particular) espouse.
With all due respect to American posters, they wouldn't know socialism if it crept up behind them and kicked them up the backside! Obama is not, and never will be a socialist.
Biccat makes some fair points, but whenever you see the Republican grass roots on the media, read about them in the media, or read the political textbooks, they always come across as a strange bunch. Maybe I'm confusing them with Tea Party members and You could rightly say that the media can often distort these people, but I talked to a few Republicans/Tea party voters whilst in America, and thus I draw the following conclusions about them based on my own experience:
1) Republicans love freedom more than anything, as long as nobody is infringing on their freedom. They're not too bothered about anybody else's freedom.
2) They hate taxes, which is fair enough, I'm none to fussy about taxes myself, but why should billionaires be exempt from taxes.
3) They're against big government, government is not the answer etc etc Yet they're quite happy to see government grow at an astronomical rate if it's in the name of national security.
There are more I could write, but I can't be bothered
In the interests of fairness, I'll say that the Democrats are just as much as a rabble as their opponents. I mean, John Kerry losing the argument with GWB over who had the best war record!! Al Bore!!! Still, things are just as bad in the UK.
As always in these types of debate I'll finish by saying that ordinary Americans are some of the most honest and friendliest people I've had the pleasure of meeting, but they always end up electing bad leaders.
I want Obama to win, because he's at least being honest and trying to fulfill more than half of his campaign promises.
Can't exactly say the same things about the republican candidates, whom are almost all either extremist right wing nutjobs or they're flip-flopping in to appearing like them and making promises they won't keep to gain their votes.
*mutters something angry about hoping Perry loses his governorship because of this*
mattyrm wrote: Mate, you called me a socialist about 6 months back, now your saying I hate Republicans, do you only read what I type directly at you?!
No, I stand by my position that you like certain socialist policies. Because you do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to deny it.
I dislike epic multi-quote adventures but I really have to ask... like what? What do I support that is socialist. Im curious because I think that what you define as socialist is pretty far from what I do.
biccat wrote: And yet you were happy to have Obama win rather than have "the moose machine gunner with cerebral palsy" as vice president. A position that carries with it somewhere between 0 and lim 0 actual authority.
Yes because I merely dislike Obama, and I utterly loathe Palin. Plus, JM was in his seventies, if he snuffed it... it really doesn't bear thinking about. Hokey hockey mom who doesn't know her arse from her elbow and thinks that being able to see Russia from Alaska counts as "foreign policy experience" is suddenly face to face with Putin?
gak, ive got google earth. I should be in charge of the whole world!
biccat wrote: Well, no, that's not entirely true. I do know why you don't. It's because you're a liberal, and you support liberal politicians.
So, the bloke who prefers the US healthcare system to the UK one, heartily supports capital punishment, thinks we should force 90% of disabled people into work, cap jobless wellfare at 6 months, not pay for students university fees, cut public sector pay and gleefully supports bombing the gak out of almost everyone, especially Palestinians is a liberal...
Its the first time I have ever been called that. In a nutshell the core of your party is seriously fethed up if they class people like me as a liberal.
Can you not be a Republican if you dont agree with every single thing that Pat Robertson says?
Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it, that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.
biccat wrote: I'm not sure what's so objectionable about these positions.
biccat wrote:
People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life.
Ignoring the plain hyperbole, its irrelevant if people still support Obama, even if he is a failure, because people do not support Palin. That simple fact, that people do not support Palin, is all that matters when considering whether or not she harmed the McCain campaign, especially given that significant evidence supports the notion that she did.
You're simply making excuses in order to avoid saying "The extremely conservative Sarah Palin had a negative impact on John McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign." I suspect this is because you don't want to internalize the concept that extreme conservatism is not well received by many Americans.
mattyrm wrote:In a nutshell the core of your party is seriously fethed up if they class people like me as a liberal.
They are.
There is very little middle ground in the party, it's a lot of extremists trying to control the lives of everyone else in the country to fit their skewed worldview. And because of the way the primaries work, they have a LOT of control over the party right now, to everyone's detriment.
dogma wrote: I suspect this is because you don't want to internalize the concept that extreme conservatism is not well received by many Americans.
OFT.
Bic is proving right here and now why the Republicans are fethed next presidential election even though Obama is clearly and obviously beatable.
There are about 50 million Americans who would find the idea of being called a "liberal" as hilarious as it is ridiculous and would happily vote Republican.
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what's so objectionable about these positions. They're simply the opposite of left-wing positions.
Well, applying my many years experience in political analysis I, unlike laymen, can clearly discern that the issue in question is right-wing positions are in opposition to left-wing positions, and that left-wing people object to things that oppose them.
The issue is, of course, more complicated than that, but still one that's very easy to illustrate if one is willing to take the time (I'm not). Indeed, I'm sure Google could very easily point you to hundreds, or thousands, of pages written as to why the positions expressed by Pat Robertson are objectionable. If that volume of information cannot present to you a reason according to which someone might consider a particular Robertson position objectionable, then you simply aren't very bright.
That being said, this statement biccat has made is rather iconic in its portrayal of the political divide in America. Many people, often the most politically active, cannot even fathom why someone might object to the positions that they hold.
IMO a lot of people, not just on this site, but in the wider society, have no idea what Liberalism or being a liberal is about. I blame Nick Clegg and Paddy Ashdown for this.
Matty, you're wrong on this. Most Americans are liberal. It was Liberal Americans that kicked out the British, Liberal American that believe in free market principals, gun ownership and religious freedom, low taxes and small government. That is what classic Liberalism is, not the unholy mess that Nick Clegg claims to be. Conservatives have done none of these things. Conservatives supported King George III for feth's sake.
It has always been a mystery to me how Liberalism has been replaced by Conservatism, because traditionly, Conservatism has always been a reactionary force.
Liberalism is FREEDOM. It is John Locke, John Stuart Mills, Adam Smith etc etc How in god's name it got hijacked by the Right, I will never know. Apologies for going off on one But Liberalism should be the natural home for most Americans.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Matty, you're wrong on this. Most Americans are liberal. It was Liberal Americans that kicked out the British, Liberal American that believe in free market principals, gun ownership and religious freedom, low taxes and small government.
The ratio of dem vs independent vs rep has remained fairly consistent for a while, each having roughly 25-40% of the populace. And frequently the independents lean towards dems, but the rep base is much more easily roused than the dem base, making up for the difference.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The country has strong, Liberal foundations. Liberalism is not a dirty word. Time for America to embrace it's past. Well, most of it,anyway.
In common discourse "liberal" denotes people on the left side of the political spectrum. According to classical definitions, almost everyone in the US is a liberal of some description.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:All liberals want to do is make you gay-marry an abortionist. And you'll have to do it too, because they took away your guns!
biccat, are you still so sure that Obama will be defeated that you are willing to agree to my bet?
I'm giving you good odds, too! I'll buy you a Battleforce / Battalion should a Republican win president in 2012 and all I ask is that you buy me a $40-$50 box set when the nominated candidate loses. That's 2:1 odds!
Who do I want to win? Ron Paul. Yes he is nutty, but he is rock solid on economics, and that is my #1 issue.
The odds are against him even getting the nomination, but hopefully he will do well enough to secure a cabinet position should one of the other Republican candidates win.
Barring that, anyone besides Obama.
Please watch your language when posting on Dakka, we don't allow or encourage the usage of offensive slurs on the site.
Reds8n.
Frankly, some added benefits and protections as well as the miliary service availability mean jack squat when you are barely making ends meet, or in the base of about 20% of the entire population, not at all.
@Melissa, you and I will disagree again about politics, and I foresee this not changing anytime soon. Obama most certainly has not created more employment. When theunemployment, and the u6 unemployment numbers have gotten bigger, the idea of more jobs created is laughable. Not even increase in population for the last several years makes up the difference.
Better for small business? Nope. Wrong again.
I am a small business owner, and this have certainly not gotten easier or better in any way. My business was steadily increasing until Obama got elected, then it has steadily decreased, and quite rapidly. Losing more than 30% of your income in 3 years is not what I would call a winning situation.
And as a homosexual. yay?! seriously. no. See paragraph 4.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Who do I want to win? Ron Paul. Yes he is nutty, but he is rock solid on economics, and that is my #1 issue.
I would actually say that economics is one of Paul's weakest points. His strength is his ability to appeal to constitutionality, and the nominal American distaste for government.
I'm hoping the independents come out and help Huntsman in New Hampshire. Hes avoiding Iowa which is a smart move for him since its become who can be the most hard core, far-right, This example was NOT expressed in an acceptable manner - Mannahnin caucus. He is the only person running who I would vote for over Obama.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The country has strong, Liberal foundations. Liberalism is not a dirty word. Time for America to embrace it's past. Well, most of it,anyway.
You're right. This country was founded on the principles of liberalism.
I suppose conservatives are to blame for labeling the American Left "Liberals" and turning it into a dirty word. But the fact is that the modern American Left has very few liberal positions. To be fair, the Republicans aren't completely liberal either. You'd have to look to libertarians for that...but they also tend to be insane, so it's tricky to find someone who really is "liberal" and not insane.
Mattyrm: yeah, I don't like quote blocks either. So you win. Enjoy.
Unemployment has been flat both sides of 9% since Jan of 2011, with the most recent print the only one that has broken that range. Since Jan of 2010, unemployment has fallen a grand total of 1.3%, with almost 1/3 of that move in November alone.
That's just the economy gradually healing itself; nobody can take credit for job creation in that environment. Conversely, whoever gets elected in 2012 is going to look like a genius because business balance sheets are generally in great shape, liquidity is excellent, and barring some sort of global Eurozone-led recession, the US economy could really be poised to break out.
sourclams wrote:Unemployment has been flat both sides of 9% since Jan of 2011, with the most recent print the only one that has broken that range. Since Jan of 2010, unemployment has fallen a grand total of 1.3%, with almost 1/3 of that move in November alone.
That's just the economy gradually healing itself; nobody can take credit for job creation in that environment. Conversely, whoever gets elected in 2012 is going to look like a genius because business balance sheets are generally in great shape, liquidity is excellent, and barring some sort of global Eurozone-led recession, the US economy could really be poised to break out.
Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference. This does not include the number of discouraged workers, workers so discouraged they've just quit looking.
I actually provided a source for my assertion about more jobs being created in Obama's administraiton (beginning last year, three years in to Obama's administration) than in the Bush administration, but then you assert (without any sources or proof or anything) something to the contrary... whiiich is a trend that started before Obama's administration began.
Thus, funny; "oh that Frazzled, it's hilarious how he ignores all the facts of the issue and keeps on chugging through his same tired old arguments!"
Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference. This does not include the number of discouraged workers, workers so discouraged they've just quit looking.
That rate dropped from 64.2% to 64.0% in November, the same time that the unemployment rate dropped by .5 points.
The number of retired will certainly adjust this rate, but I don't think 1.5% of the population has moved from working to retirement since January 2009.
Melissia wrote:I actually provided a source for my assertion about more jobs being created in Obama's administraiton (beginning last year, three years in to Obama's administration) than in the Bush administration, but then you assert (without any sources or proof or anything) something to the contrary... whiiich is a trend that started before Obama's administration began.
Thus, funny; "oh that Frazzled, it's hilarious how he ignores all the facts of the issue and keeps on chugging through his same tired old arguments!"
Here, let's try some visual information:
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Wow thats completely notwhat I stated. i stated that Obama has not created more employement. Less people are employed now than when he started. Unless you mean he created more government jobs (wwhich frankly is the only thing he actually can do-the federal government does not 'create' jobs).
Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference.
No, unemployment is a measure of the unemployed. That is the same metric. You're referring to the total underemployment/those who have exited the labor or job seeking pool. And yes, that number is larger, partially as a result of unemployment benefit extensions tailing off and people "falling out" of the system.
Regardless, the economy is healing itself, socioeconomic divides are getting wider (haves versus have-nots) and nobody can possibly claim victory on job creation.
Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct. unemployment has not fallen. The amount of people meeting the criteria of "unemployed" has. BIG difference.
No, unemployment is a measure of the unemployed. That is the same metric. You're referring to the total underemployment/those who have exited the labor or job seeking pool. And yes, that number is larger, partially as a result of unemployment benefit extensions tailing off and people "falling out" of the system.
Regardless, the economy is healing itself, socioeconomic divides are getting wider (haves versus have-nots) and nobody can possibly claim victory on job creation.
The unemployment rate is a measure of the unemployed who are aqctively looking for work, and within a specific period of time of unemployement. It does not include those who have quit looking for work. but guess what, they are still unemployed.
sourclams wrote:No, unemployment is a measure of the unemployed. That is the same metric. You're referring to the total underemployment/those who have exited the labor or job seeking pool. And yes, that number is larger, partially as a result of unemployment benefit extensions tailing off and people "falling out" of the system.
U3, the "official" unemployment rate, only counts those who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks.
Which is why participation rate (if controlled for retirement) is a better metric than the unemployment rate or even the number of jobs created. Number of jobs created is a poor metric because the population of working adults is growing.
Frazzled wrote:i stated that Obama has not created more employement.
No you didn't.
Frazzled wrote:Less people are employed now than 2008. Unless you count government payrolls of course.
That's what you said.
Which isn't really even sourced, by the way, it's just you pulling random facts out of your head.
Not at all. i didn't even say he created more government jobs. He might have. With $1.5T in deficit spending in one year thats likely. But other than that Obama didn't create. . The Federal Government doesn't "create" jobs outside of its direct employment or contracts.
We're splitting hairs over terminology, so I'm not going to bother pursuing that one.
As to the chart Melissia posted and you responded to, it's nonsensical. The recession was at its most severe in 2H2008-1H2009. Then economic recovery began 2H2009-1H2010 before flattening out.
You can't blame Bush for "destroying" jobs between June 08 and May 09, nor does Obama get credit for "creating" jobs at the end of a bottoming pattern.
biccat wrote:Which is why participation rate (if controlled for retirement) is a better metric than the unemployment rate or even the number of jobs created. Number of jobs created is a poor metric because the population of working adults is growing.
Oh, so you suggest the population is only growing during Obama administration?
Because perhaps it's just me, but I think that using your reasoning (that population growth lessens the effect of job creation), the population growth would make such huge job losses as were shown during the end of the Bush administration have a bigger effect.
sourclams wrote:We're splitting hairs over terminology, so I'm not going to bother pursuing that one.
As to the chart Melissia posted and you responded to, it's nonsensical. The recession was at its most severe in 2H2008-1H2009. Then economic recovery began 2H2009-1H2010 before flattening out.
You can't blame Bush for "destroying" jobs between June 08 and May 09, nor does Obama get credit for "creating" jobs at the end of a bottoming pattern.
But you can't somehow give Obama miraculous credit for job creation, as that chart suggests. A Chinchillah could have been the United States President, and that chart would look exactly the same. It's simply the way the calendar fell out between LY Bush and FY Obama that creates a happy coincidence.
sourclams wrote:But you can't somehow give Obama miraculous credit for job creation, as that chart suggests.
I can give him credit for helping facilitate it, yes. He worked with the SBA to enhance their abilities, and produced stimulus packages, etc to do exactly that.
biccat wrote:Which is why participation rate (if controlled for retirement) is a better metric than the unemployment rate or even the number of jobs created. Number of jobs created is a poor metric because the population of working adults is growing.
Oh, so you suggest the population is only growing during Obama administration?
I'm not sure how you possibly could have inferred that from my comments.
Your comment is seriously baffling.
Melissia wrote:Because perhaps it's just me, but I think that using your reasoning (that population growth lessens the effect of job creation), the population growth would make such huge job losses as were shown during the end of the Bush administration have a bigger effect.
Of course large numbers of job losses in a small population have a greater effect than large numbers of job losses in a large population. Similarly, small numbers of job created in a small population have a greater effect than small numbers of jobs created in a large population.
The fact is that job growth is currently unable to match population growth. This is a problem. The number of unemployed (not using the government's definition here) will therefore increase until the number of jobs created outpaces the number of new people entering the labor force.
Melissia wrote:I can blame the Republican party's push for deregulation.
On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
You're a better person than me, Melissia. I would have a hard time arguing with people who don't use facts, are overly pedantic, and are intellectually dishonest.
Still, biccat, if Obummer is such a bad president surely the Republicans will beat him in 2012 and surely you would love a new Battalion or Battleforce when that happens, right? Or do you not really believe the things you say on here and just waste our time with the half truths and sophistry that you refuse to back up?
TheHammer wrote:Still, biccat, if Obummer is such a bad president surely the Republicans will beat him in 2012 and surely you would love a new Battalion or Battleforce when that happens, right? Or do you not really believe the things you say on here...?
Sorry, what?
But to answer your question: no, I'm not going to buy a new Battalion or Battleforce, whether President Obama wins reelection or not. First because they're outrageously expensive for stupid unit selections; and second because I already have 2 Fantasy, 2 WM/H, and 2 40k armies.
My goal is to finish painting my O&G army by then. Barring that, at least paint my Skorne army (which has significantly fewer, although better, models).
Personal insults, per usual, cut.
Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:So you're saying Clinton was a Republican?
No, I'm saying I wouldn't defend his actions.
So how can you "blame Republicans" for deregulation when the Democrats had (at least) a strong hand to play in the one example you cite?
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:I know lol. Another 4 years of Obama or 4 years of Romney aint so bad. I'm white and semi-educated so I should be fine.
Realistically, the only candidates that I want to lose are Bachmann and Santorum, primarily because I don't want to listen to them for 4 years. I don't think either would have a significant impact on policy.
Truthfully, one could make the case that this Presidential elections is significantly less important than the Congressional elections of the same cycle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
So how can you "blame Republicans" for deregulation when the Democrats had (at least) a strong hand to play in the one example you cite?
I'm not taking a position on this, but I always find the following funny (quote from Wikipedia because I'm too lazy to dig it out of the House minutes):
During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Hey posters. Where can I find that political graph thing? I have a feeling my views have changed since deciding to enlist.
What you going in for Sam?
Navy, hoping for something Aviation related, but If I can't get that, mechanics are fine. I scored an 88 on my asvab, so hopefully that puts me in a place too go for a lot of things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Hmph...
I've seen the political compass loads of times, I've just never heard of anyone deciding to use it referring to it as "enlisting".
Kids today eh?
Its like my graphic designer mate who puts gak like "Once more unto the breach then!" on his facebook because its Monday morning.
Do you like seeing all the money in the land continually being funneled to the top 1% of richest people? Ever wonder why the middle class is shrinking or why it's harder to keep a job for an extended period than ever? Like the idea of going bankrupt if you get ill even if you have insurance? About 50% of American families are now considered to be living below the poverty line. Vote for one of these clowns hoping to win in Iowa this week if you want it to get even worse.
The Winner Tonight: Iowa's One Percent
George Zornick on January 3, 2012 - 1:03pm ET
Iowa may be much more socially conservative than most states—behold the recent rise of Rick Santorum—but on economic measures, Iowa more closely resembles the rest of the country. The median income in 2010 was $48,031, just off the national average of $50,046. Increased demand for agricultural products has kept the unemployment relatively low, at 5.7 percent, but over 400,000 Iowans still live below the poverty line—that’s 13 percent of the state.
So how do the Republican candidates traversing the state today and asking for support plan to address income inequality, if it all? The answer—brace yourself—is to shift even more income to the top one percent.
Citizens for Tax Justice performed an analysis of three candidates’ plans: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. The others didn’t provide enough detail for analysis, but the numbers we do have suggest that no matter which candidate delivers a victory speech this evening, the interests of the state’s wealthiest members will surely triumph.
The worst among the plans examined belongs to Newt Gingrich—if enacted, his proposed tax structure would award the wealthiest one percent of Iowans a $228,050 tax cut in 2014. Comparatively, the middle fifth of Iowans in the income scale would get a cut of only $2,140. (Yes, that’s 100 times less). Rick Perry would hand $164,560 to the richest Iowans, while cutting taxes for the middle fifth by only $1,190—130 times less than top one percent would receive. And Mitt Romney would award $75,650 in tax cuts to each member of Iowa’s top one percent, and $1,320 to the middle fifth.
Here is CTJ's chart:
CTJ may not have had enough data to perform similar analyses for the rest of the candidates, but we can still safely assume the top one percent would come out fine under their plans. Ron Paul, for example, supports repealing the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows Congress to enact income taxes. He favors a national flat tax in its place, which is of course deeply regressive. Santorum’s plan isn’t detailed enough to analyze, but he said recently that “I’m for income inequality”—so you can draw your own conclusions about whom his tax policy might help.
Easy E wrote:In 2008, my gut told me Hilary was not going to be the nominee.
In 2012, my gut is telling me that Romney will be the nominee.
That makes an Obama v. Romney borelection.
What if Romney walks over and slaps Obama? That could get interesting. Alternatively Obama could roll up in a red zoot suit and answer all debate questions with "Shaft, can you dig it?"
Frazzled wrote:What if Obama walks over and slaps Romney? That could get interesting. Alternatively Romney could roll up in a pink polo shirt with a popped collar and answer all debate questions with "Where is the coloured boy with my lemonade?"
Easy E wrote:In 2008, my gut told me Hilary was not going to be the nominee.
In 2012, my gut is telling me that Romney will be the nominee.
That makes an Obama v. Romney borelection.
What if Romney walks over and slaps Obama? That could get interesting. Alternatively Obama could roll up in a red zoot suit and answer all debate questions with "Shaft, can you dig it?"
Sure. and if he was white, we'd never get to see you type that stupid line. Please, tell us how you really feel, Fraz.
Easy E wrote:In 2008, my gut told me Hilary was not going to be the nominee.
In 2012, my gut is telling me that Romney will be the nominee.
That makes an Obama v. Romney borelection.
What if Romney walks over and slaps Obama? That could get interesting. Alternatively Obama could roll up in a red zoot suit and answer all debate questions with "Shaft, can you dig it?"
Sure. and if he was white, we'd never get to see you type that stupid line. Please, tell us how you really feel, Fraz.
Frazzled wrote:What if Obama walks over and slaps Romney? That could get interesting. Alternatively Romney could roll up in a pink polo shirt with a popped collar and answer all debate questions with "Where is the coloured boy with my lemonade?"
That might be way more accurate. Alternatively Romney could pull up with in a Tea Party outfit, Obama in an OWS outfit and they could attempt to outprotest each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
dogma wrote:Can Borat moderate?
Only in that rockin' bathing suit.
Yes!!! Now we're getting interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Alternatively Obama could roll up in a red zoot suit and answer all debate questions with "Shaft, can you dig it?"
Obama: My opponent favors government healthcare, just look what he did in Massachusetts.
Romney: Shut yo mouth.
Obama: I'm just talkin' 'bout government healthcare.
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm envisioning Bachman, Palin, and Hillary Clinton as backup singers, banging out "Shaft!"
BrassScorpion wrote:About 50% of American families are now considered to be living below the poverty line.
Did you know that metric defines those in poverty as earning between 100% and 199% of the poverty line? Thus, a family of 5 could be earning more than $50,000 a year, and still be considered in poverty according to this metric. How on earth can you define 'poverty' as anything up to double the maximum income considered to be in poverty?
And I'm sorry, but $50,000 a year is not poverty. It's not lavish, but it's more than enough to raise a family independently in most areas of the nation.
alarmingrick wrote:Fraz, what exactly do zoot suits have to do with Shaft & digging it?
Nice one by the way. Calling ME a racist.
You brought up unfounded racist viewpoints. Its not my fault your own schewed viewpoint tied in a 1940's epically cool LA based suit fashion with racism.
Frazzled wrote:You brought up unfounded racist viewpoints.
I wouldn't say they were unfounded. Your statement wasn't KKK racist, but it was certainly not well thought out and certainly only alluded to the President through ethic things (Blaxplotation and Zoot suits) while having a white guy slap him. Overt racism? Nah. Unintentional, thoughtless racism? Eh, maybe just a little.
alarmingrick wrote:Fraz, what exactly do zoot suits have to do with Shaft & digging it?
Nice one by the way. Calling ME a racist.
Isn't it hard to call anyone a racist without knowing the intent and/or context of the message/action?
No. People do that all the time. It is in fact, I think, the opposite of hard, and one of the reasons it gets bandied about so often.
OK you're right, but accurately describing something as racist you still need to be aware of the context and intent right? Like describing a racial stereotype doesn't make my comment necessarily racist
unless I truly believed in that stereotype or was trying to convince others that it was true then it would be racist.
Frazzled wrote:You brought up unfounded racist viewpoints.
I wouldn't say they were unfounded. Your statement wasn't KKK racist, but it was certainly not well thought out and certainly only alluded to the President through ethic things (Blaxplotation and Zoot suits) while having a white guy slap him. Overt racism? Nah. Unintentional, thoughtless racism? Eh, maybe just a little.
Zoot suits are Hispanic in origin. Different ethnic group, so not appropriate on the racist charge. Besides they are epic cool, and would be a real treat in contrast to the usual starched shirt. Obama could pull off a nehru jacket most excellently, but it would be too mellow. As noted, we're trying to liven things up.
Altnerantively, to go with the spy vs. spy theme, we could go with Romney as a Pirate (Bain Capital after all) and Obama as a ninja.
alarmingrick wrote:Fraz, what exactly do zoot suits have to do with Shaft & digging it?
Nice one by the way. Calling ME a racist.
Isn't it hard to call anyone a racist without knowing the intent and/or context of the message/action?
No. People do that all the time. It is in fact, I think, the opposite of hard, and one of the reasons it gets bandied about so often.
OK you're right, but accurately describing something as racist you still need to be aware of the context and intent right? Like describing a racial stereotype doesn't make my comment necessarily racist
unless I truly believed in that stereotype or was trying to convince others that it was true then it would be racist.
Isn't context and intent important even if we aren't discussing racism? Intent is problematic though becuase it is difficult to ascertain, people can be ignorant, and they also lie; context is easier to get a clearer view of. Someone can constantly make jokes about the president loving KFC and then be offended that you find that constant line of jokes offensive, but because they think it is ok becuase they are ignorant, so the intent isn't there (or they could be and when caught are lieing about it) but the context points to casual racism. 4chan is a good example of ignorance and casual racism as well. I can't explain that one more fully without violating all sorts of rules.
alarmingrick wrote:Fraz, what exactly do zoot suits have to do with Shaft & digging it?
Nice one by the way. Calling ME a racist.
Isn't it hard to call anyone a racist without knowing the intent and/or context of the message/action?
No. People do that all the time. It is in fact, I think, the opposite of hard, and one of the reasons it gets bandied about so often.
OK you're right, but accurately describing something as racist you still need to be aware of the context and intent right? Like describing a racial stereotype doesn't make my comment necessarily racist
unless I truly believed in that stereotype or was trying to convince others that it was true then it would be racist.
Isn't context and intent important even if we aren't discussing racism? Intent is problematic though becuase it is difficult to ascertain, people can be ignorant, and they also lie; context is easier to get a clearer view of. Someone can constantly make jokes about the president loving KFC and then be offended that you find that constant line of jokes offensive, but because they think it is ok becuase they are ignorant, so the intent isn't there (or they could be and when caught are lieing about it) but the context points to casual racism. 4chan is a good example of ignorance and casual racism as well. I can't explain that one more fully without violating all sorts of rules.
Well in this instance, it aint. One could just as easily have Obama slap a Zoot suit wearing Romney. But the suit would have to be a red/black suit of course. I'd say football jerseys but does Utah even have a football team?
Frazzled wrote:You brought up unfounded racist viewpoints.
I wouldn't say they were unfounded. Your statement wasn't KKK racist, but it was certainly not well thought out and certainly only alluded to the President through ethic things (Blaxplotation and Zoot suits) while having a white guy slap him. Overt racism? Nah. Unintentional, thoughtless racism? Eh, maybe just a little.
Zoot suits are Hispanic in origin. Different ethnic group, so not appropriate on the racist charge. Besides they are epic cool, and would be a real treat in contrast to the usual starched shirt. Obama could pull off a nehru jacket most excellently, but it would be too mellow. As noted, we're trying to liven things up.
Altnerantively, to go with the spy vs. spy theme, we could go with Romney as a Pirate (Bain Capital after all) and Obama as a ninja.
You do realize I said 'ethnic' and not black right? Even still I don't buy that argument. I understand your need to distance yourself and spin your original statement, but try not to lie so badly to do so. If you want to try and do it by pretending zoot suits were only latino, you might want to do more homework, as it may have origins there but was also very popular in Harlem and other black areas and shown as such in film and other popular media. One of the most famous examples of a zoot suit, is Cab Calloway, who is not latino. Well, second most famous.
alarmingrick wrote:Fraz, what exactly do zoot suits have to do with Shaft & digging it?
Nice one by the way. Calling ME a racist.
Isn't it hard to call anyone a racist without knowing the intent and/or context of the message/action?
No. People do that all the time. It is in fact, I think, the opposite of hard, and one of the reasons it gets bandied about so often.
OK you're right, but accurately describing something as racist you still need to be aware of the context and intent right? Like describing a racial stereotype doesn't make my comment necessarily racist
unless I truly believed in that stereotype or was trying to convince others that it was true then it would be racist.
Isn't context and intent important even if we aren't discussing racism? Intent is problematic though becuase it is difficult to ascertain, people can be ignorant, and they also lie; context is easier to get a clearer view of. Someone can constantly make jokes about the president loving KFC and then be offended that you find that constant line of jokes offensive, but because they think it is ok becuase they are ignorant, so the intent isn't there (or they could be and when caught are lieing about it) but the context points to casual racism. 4chan is a good example of ignorance and casual racism as well. I can't explain that one more fully without violating all sorts of rules.
That sounds better than what I said, I'll keep that in mind when interpreting one's action or message as being racist or not.
Frazzled wrote:You brought up unfounded racist viewpoints.
I wouldn't say they were unfounded. Your statement wasn't KKK racist, but it was certainly not well thought out and certainly only alluded to the President through ethic things (Blaxplotation and Zoot suits) while having a white guy slap him. Overt racism? Nah. Unintentional, thoughtless racism? Eh, maybe just a little.
Zoot suits are Hispanic in origin. Different ethnic group, so not appropriate on the racist charge. Besides they are epic cool, and would be a real treat in contrast to the usual starched shirt. Obama could pull off a nehru jacket most excellently, but it would be too mellow. As noted, we're trying to liven things up.
Altnerantively, to go with the spy vs. spy theme, we could go with Romney as a Pirate (Bain Capital after all) and Obama as a ninja.
You do realize I said 'ethnic' and not black right? Even still I don't buy that argument. I understand your need to distance yourself and spin your original statement, but try not to lie so badly to do so. If you want to try and do it by pretending zoot suits were only latino, you might want to do more homework, as it may have origins there but was also very popular in Harlem and other black areas and shown as such in film and other popular media. One of the most famous examples of a zoot suit, is Cab Calloway, who is not latino. Well, second most famous.
Really? The only references I had of it was when I was in LA and here and it was strictly hispanic. Learn something every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_suit
Can we modify nad just have Bill Clinton moderate the debate with Hillary surprising everyone by appearing, slapping Bill, and throwing a blue dress in his face?
The dearly departed Christopher Hitchens would also serve. Though it would just be 30 minutes of him pillorying the pair, not that I have a problem with such an event.
Frazzled wrote:Can we modify nad just have Bill Clinton moderate the debate with Hillary surprising everyone by appearing, slapping Bill, and throwing a blue dress in his face?
Your choice of Moderators is confusing. Why not have Bush Jr. trying to open doors to questions that don't open and his pops can puke all over everyone.
It's your groups circular firing squad. why do you want to drag Dems into it?
alarmingrick wrote:Your choice of Moderators is confusing. Why not have Bush Jr. trying to open doors to questions that don't open and his pops can puke all over everyone.
It's your groups circular firing squad. why do you want to drag Dems into it?
Is it worse to try to open a locked door or to walk into a window in your house?
Spoiler:
Also, I believe the subject was a potential Obama-Romney debate.
alarmingrick wrote:Your choice of Moderators is confusing. Why not have Bush Jr. trying to open doors to questions that don't open and his pops can puke all over everyone.
It's your groups circular firing squad. why do you want to drag Dems into it?
Is it worse to try to open a locked door or to walk into a window in your house?
Spoiler:
Also, I believe the subject was a potential Obama-Romney debate.
Ah, but see, you're drawing a Dem into your groups little "Who's Prettier" contest.
You'll have time to play Obama jokes once you figure out who you're sending to the big show.
biccat wrote:
Is it worse to try to open a locked door or to walk into a window in your house?
Spoiler:
I imagine its worse to try to walk into a window, as I have tried to open a locked door in my own house on several occasions.
Also, the object depicted in the linked image is clearly a door. There is a window in said door, but criticism regarding any attempt to walk into it would follow from simply having a window in a door that any person might use.
If not having windows in doors a new conservative talking point?
Frazzled wrote:You brought up unfounded racist viewpoints.
I wouldn't say they were unfounded. Your statement wasn't KKK racist, but it was certainly not well thought out and certainly only alluded to the President through ethic things (Blaxplotation and Zoot suits) while having a white guy slap him. Overt racism? Nah. Unintentional, thoughtless racism? Eh, maybe just a little.
Zoot suits are Hispanic in origin. Different ethnic group, so not appropriate on the racist charge. Besides they are epic cool, and would be a real treat in contrast to the usual starched shirt. Obama could pull off a nehru jacket most excellently, but it would be too mellow. As noted, we're trying to liven things up.
Altnerantively, to go with the spy vs. spy theme, we could go with Romney as a Pirate (Bain Capital after all) and Obama as a ninja.
You know what Fraz? Why not come out and say what you mean? You say just enough to have 2 pages of back pedalling.
That's part of the problem with alot of things. Noone saying what they mean, and everyone else assumes. I'm not going to
label you. you know what you meant. you say Zoot instead of pimp. close enough to make the point. If you want to make fun
of Obama, why not go after the ears or teleprompter? you guys have miles of that shtick.
you need to re-evaluate how you really feel. Or maybe learn how to say it anyway.
Frazzled wrote:Can we modify nad just have Bill Clinton moderate the debate with Hillary surprising everyone by appearing, slapping Bill, and throwing a blue dress in his face?
Your choice of Moderators is confusing. Why not have Bush Jr. trying to open doors to questions that don't open and his pops can puke all over everyone.
It's your groups circular firing squad. why do you want to drag Dems into it?
Because the charge was to make this interesting. Duh! A debate moderation board of Ron White, Lewis Black, and Bill Clinton would be interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You brought up unfounded racist viewpoints.
I wouldn't say they were unfounded. Your statement wasn't KKK racist, but it was certainly not well thought out and certainly only alluded to the President through ethic things (Blaxplotation and Zoot suits) while having a white guy slap him. Overt racism? Nah. Unintentional, thoughtless racism? Eh, maybe just a little.
Zoot suits are Hispanic in origin. Different ethnic group, so not appropriate on the racist charge. Besides they are epic cool, and would be a real treat in contrast to the usual starched shirt. Obama could pull off a nehru jacket most excellently, but it would be too mellow. As noted, we're trying to liven things up.
Altnerantively, to go with the spy vs. spy theme, we could go with Romney as a Pirate (Bain Capital after all) and Obama as a ninja.
You know what Fraz? Why not come out and say what you mean? You say just enough to have 2 pages of back pedalling.
That's part of the problem with alot of things. Noone saying what they mean, and everyone else assumes. I'm not going to
label you. you know what you meant. you say Zoot instead of pimp. close enough to make the point. If you want to make fun
of Obama, why not go after the ears or teleprompter? you guys have miles of that shtick.
you need to re-evaluate how you really feel. Or maybe learn how to say it anyway.
Any comparison of Zoot suits and pimps suits is just pathetic, and frankly unAmerican. It reeks of...Frenchness. I sense a disturbance in the force like the voices of a thousand cholos crying out at once. Watch out for lowriders when you step out the door next steenking gringo!
biccat wrote: Is it worse to try to open a locked door or to walk into a window in your house?
Spoiler:
I imagine its worse to try to walk into a window, as I have tried to open a locked door in my own house on several occasions.
Having walked into at least one window, I can attest to the truthiness of this comment.
dogma wrote:Also, the object depicted in the linked image is clearly a door. There is a window in said door, but criticism regarding any attempt to walk into it would follow from simply having a window in a door that any person might use.
If you'll notice, the door is actually a few steps to the right. It's the one with hinges. Look at Ahtman's second picture. The Grand Poobah of Socialism walked into the smaller "window" (or what we Conservatives would call a window, presumably you would call this a door since you can't open it, can't walk through it, and it doesn't provide egress between the interior and exterior of a domicile) to the right of the "door" (again, what we Conservatives would call a door, presumably this is a Llama to liberals).
dogma wrote:If not having windows in doors a new conservative talking point?
Is windows not having hinges a new liberal talking point?
Piston Honda wrote:Newt? Why would I trust the future of this country into the hands of a guy who left his wife... with cancer? He is a disgusting human being.
You might want to check your facts. I'm just sayin'.
So, Mitt beats Santorum in Iowa by 8 votes. Mitt spent almost 0 time in Iowa, and Santorum is just the latest "not Mitt" candidate. Santorum spent all of the campaign so far in Iowa. There is no doubt in my mind now that Rommney is the Repub candidate.
No way Santorum has the money, stamina, or support in the other cauacus states. I would be shocked if he wins anything after this.
On the other hand, Paul got a respectiable 21% and third place. I don;t think he will win any states, but I would not be surprised if he consistently gets 20% or so in all the states. Too bad for him it is a winner takes all primary system for Repubs.
Final bit of "Random Internet guy" punditry, Romney has still been unable to get more than 25% of Republican voters to support him in polls and caucuses. I will be interested to see how well the party can rally aroudn the candidate, or if this guy will be a dud candidate that can''t even rally his own base.
dogma wrote:Also, the object depicted in the linked image is clearly a door. There is a window in said door, but criticism regarding any attempt to walk into it would follow from simply having a window in a door that any person might use.
Wow, he was somewhat unfamiliar with the layout of a 132 room mansion, specifically place he had only been in for, I hazard to say, less than a dozen hours or so, since the date on that article is Jan 28th, 2009th.
I look forward to your resurrection of Mustardgate next.
Just 5 more years of this sort of bottom of the barrel conservative scraping to look forward to.
Forget Kenya. Never mind the secret madrassas. The sinister, shocking truth about Barack Obama’s past lies not in east Africa, but in outer space. As a young man in the early 1980s, Obama was part of a secret CIA project to explore Mars. The future president teleported there, along with the future head of Darpa.
.... your politicians are so much more interesting than ours.
Forget Kenya. Never mind the secret madrassas. The sinister, shocking truth about Barack Obama’s past lies not in east Africa, but in outer space. As a young man in the early 1980s, Obama was part of a secret CIA project to explore Mars. The future president teleported there, along with the future head of Darpa.
.... your politicians are so much more interesting than ours.
The sad part is the amount of people in the comments section that actually believe it or something similarly crazy is true.
I don't see any way that it's not Romney's nomination.
Truthfully, I think he has the best chance of actually winning the general election. I don't think it's a great chance but it's better then any of the other candidates, some of which are truly, epically clownshoes. Rick Santorum, my goodness. How far the party done fallen.
Ouze wrote:I don't see any way that it's not Romney's nomination.
Truthfully, I think he has the best chance of actually winning the general election. I don't think it's a great chance but it's better then any of the other candidates, some of which are truly, epically clownshoes. Rick Santorum, my goodness. How far the party done fallen.
Not a good chance? Even without the official endorsement, Romney is -1.6 vs. Obama, which is likely within the margin of error.
I appreciate the misguided assumption by so many that Obama is "safe" in 2012. Must be why he expects to spend a billion dollars (mostly Wall Street money, like last t ime) to get re-elected.
biccat wrote:
I appreciate the misguided assumption by so many that Obama is "safe" in 2012. Must be why he expects to spend a billion dollars (mostly Wall Street money, like last t ime) to get re-elected.
This goes both ways. If those candidates were any good they wouldn't need to spend any money, amirite?
Meanwhile back in the real world where we aren't intellectually dishonest, we understand that literally anyone in any race has to spend boat-loads of money to win even a perfect race.
So, biccat, you will now address my actual bet instead of willfully misunderstanding it: If a Republican beats Obama in 2012 I will buy you a Battalion or Battleforce of your choice while you will buy me a $40 or $50 box set if the Republican loses. That's 2:1 odds for you, buddy!
If you're so sure of it, surely you will take a bet that favors you!
TheHammer wrote:So, biccat, you will now address my actual bet instead of willfully misunderstanding it: If a Republican beats Obama in 2012 I will buy you a Battalion or Battleforce of your choice while you will buy me a $40 or $50 box set if the Republican loses. That's 2:1 odds for you, buddy!
If you're so sure of it, surely you will take a bet that favors you!
You have this fascination with betting, or at least betting Biccat. Despite him saying he won't bet you-for whatever personal reason (you do know in some states its legally unethical for attorneys to gamble?) Have you sought help for this strange addiction?
Edit spelling - its weird that my laptop has a spellcheck feature, but not desktop.
I'm not sure, but it seems you don't understand hyperbole. However, your link clearly shows the error of the "powered overwhelmingly by small online donations" myth of the Obama campaign.
Rented Tritium wrote:
biccat wrote: I appreciate the misguided assumption by so many that Obama is "safe" in 2012. Must be why he expects to spend a billion dollars (mostly Wall Street money, like last t ime) to get re-elected.
This goes both ways. If those candidates were any good they wouldn't need to spend any money, amirite?
My argument isn't that candidates spend money, it's that the scope of spending.
TheHammer wrote:So, biccat, you will now address my actual bet instead of willfully misunderstanding it: If a Republican beats Obama in 2012 I will buy you a Battalion or Battleforce of your choice while you will buy me a $40 or $50 box set if the Republican loses. That's 2:1 odds for you, buddy!
Is that what you were getting at? Honestly, you could have been clearer. Your previous post suggested that if Republicans were to win I should buy a battlebox.
TheHammer wrote:If you're so sure of it, surely you will take a bet that favors you!
I'm not sure about the legality of the bet, in my state, yours, or even on Dakka. Assuming that it is legal, I'll take that wager. And, to Frazzled's point, so long as it is not unethical (I don't think it is, but I can check) in any of the states where I'm admitted.
One important stipulation: I'm not buying any fething Space Marines.
edit: I see from your posting history that you've posted this in at least three threads. Don't you think it would have been easier to simply PM me?
biccat wrote:Not a good chance? Even without the official endorsement, Romney is -1.6 vs. Obama, which is likely within the margin of error.
And, were the election today, that would be a problem. But it is not. The man campaigned in Iowa for essentially 6 years, to a net result of 7 less votes then in 2008. Still has many more months of other republicans whaling away on Romney, while Obama is building his donations and honing his knives for the weak points that will be revealed by Gingrich Santorum et al., all the while the economy is likely slowly improving.
And that is really the only hook Romney has to hang his hat on, since he can't use the obvious thing - that which Republicans despise most, Obamacare - to any real effect. He can't use his experience in the private sector, since it's at least somewhat tainted by his perception as being a unpalatable wall street corporate raider who destroyed companies and profited. He can't claim he understands middle classs kitchen table issues; this is a man who casually makes $10,000 bets on whimsy. He can't even insinuate Obama is a secret muslim, since he has his own religious problem. Also, this is supposition on my part, but I suspect he's going to pick one of those also-ran nutjobs as his VP pick to play to the fringe element that is now steering the ship. I suspect someone like Santorum, even, would play quite well to his thinking should he decide to do so.
On the other hand, he might go with Huntsman - that would be a shrewd pick, since Huntsman appears to have common sense, a rarity in politics. That would be a very good race, but nonetheless unless Obama makes some disastrous misstep in the coming year, unless the economy worsens, I think it's still his election to win, albeit by a likely thin margin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:One important stipulation: I'm not buying any fething Space Marines.
biccat wrote:
It appears you've resulted to tautologies.
The initial point was obviously rhetorical, so the tautology is a reflection of your continued attempt at discourse.
Are you saying that you understood the point I initially was making ("mostly Wall Street money, like last time"), but included a link and a deliberately provocative comment regardless? If so, do you think this is trolling, flaming, or merely a run-of-the-mill attempt at being demeaning?
Or are you saying that my subsequent comment ("it seems you don't understand hyperbole") was well understood, but suggested that refuting it would be the work of a young child? If so, do you think this is trolling, flaming, or merely a run-of-the-mill attempt at being demeaning?
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have interpreted my next comment ("You must not know too many 5-year-olds") as rhetorical, unless you were referring to members of this board as 5-year-olds, a relationship I would be well aware of. Because such a comment would certainly be trolling, flaming, and the standard run-of-the-mill demeaning comment.
I'm also pretty sure that my question "when he was 5-years-old?" wouldn't be rhetorical, because to do so assumes the tautology that I accused you of making.
And my previous comment, ("Are there other 5-year-olds who lampoon hyperbole in the manner you suggest, or only Thomas Payne (when he acted like a 5-year-old)?") certainly couldn't be the one you're referring to, because you referred to an "initial point."
biccat wrote:
Are you saying that you understood the point I initially was making ("mostly Wall Street money, like last time"), but included a link and a deliberately provocative comment regardless?
Yes.
biccat wrote:
If so, do you think this is trolling, flaming, or merely a run-of-the-mill attempt at being demeaning?
I call it banter, what you call it is up to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
I'm also pretty sure that my question "when he was 5-years-old?" wouldn't be rhetorical, because to do so assumes the tautology that I accused you of making.
Dogma, I hate to be pedantic, but it's Thomas Paine
Back OT in my view, nobody comes out of this with any credit. The Republicans are a shadow of what they used to be, and Obama (if he wins) will just muddle through another four years.
Somebody once said that society gets the leaders it deserves. If the calibre of western leaders is anything to go by, it's no wonder the BRICS and the Chinese are surging ahead.
I've seen it both ways as well, but he did sign his name P A I N E. I could be wrong but in 18th C writing both spellings were considered correct. Irish vs. English if memory serves.
Regardless of the spelling, we will never see the likes of Thomas Paine again, and that's not just a tragedy for America, but democracy and liberty as a whole. A man of principal who put his money where his mouth was.
Back OT: If Only this guy were running for the oval office
Automatically Appended Next Post: Quote: "It seems like only yesterday I was strafing your homes, here I am today begging you not to make such good cars!! " Priceless.
I'm not sure, but it seems you don't understand hyperbole. However, your link clearly shows the error of the "powered overwhelmingly by small online donations" myth of the Obama campaign.
How, in this instance, was the reader to recognize it as hyperbole rather than a sincere claim?
AustonT wrote:Isn't hot shots 2 from the mid 90's?
Aren't most Republican attitudes from the 1890's?
It was a Republican who was the first third party candidate to win a presidential election, it was the same Republican who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, voting percentages for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
halonachos wrote:It was a Republican who was the first third party candidate to win a presidential election, it was the same Republican who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, voting percentages for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(snip)
More Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans, damn those stupid Republicans.
While this is technically true, it doesn't mean what you are saying it does. The parties have undergone enormous changes in the years since. The democratic bloc that voted against the CRA left en masse when the Southern Strategy was deployed and became.... well, read up on it and see.
Please also don't say rude things about large groups of people. -Mannahnin
This describes every political thread on Dakka...
So if I understand correctly your point halonachos it is that once, several decades ago, the republicans somehow found themselves on the right side of a pretty common sense issue? And thus you seem to be implying what? that they are more liberal/progressive/humanitarian then today's liberals? Im not sure what your point is in the context of today's conservatives and their talking points/actions...
So I'll ask the same thing I did previous: What is their excuse for many of their positions today that are galaxies awayr from this sort of philisophical mindset?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
AustonT wrote:Isn't hot shots 2 from the mid 90's?
Aren't most Republican attitudes from the 1890's?
a simple yes or no would have sufficed. But I suppose one should never miss an oppourtunity for demagogy.
Hate the game not the playa: this is every political thread here and much of the interwebz.
CT GAMER wrote:So if I understand correctly your point Biccat it is that once, several decades ago, the republicans somehow found themselves on the right side of a pretty common sense issue?
So I'll ask the same thing I did previous: What is their excuse for many of their positions today that are galaxies awayr from this sort of philisophical mindset?
I don't know if you think it's clever to misspell my name or if it was a simple error, but I fixed it for you.
And that's not my point at all. I'm pretty sure I didn't raise one, especially not the one you seem to be criticising.
"What is their excuse for many of their positions today"
Freedom not slavery. It's been that way for a while, tbh.
Thanks for accepting my wager, biccat. Don't worry about my wanting anything Space Marine related when I win as I will likely want something for Warhammer Fantasy or Lord of the Rings.
CT GAMER wrote:So if I understand correctly your point Biccat it is that once, several decades ago, the republicans somehow found themselves on the right side of a pretty common sense issue?
So I'll ask the same thing I did previous: What is their excuse for many of their positions today that are galaxies awayr from this sort of philisophical mindset?
I don't know if you think it's clever to misspell my name or if it was a simple error, but I fixed it for you.
And that's not my point at all. I'm pretty sure I didn't raise one, especially not the one you seem to be criticising.
"What is their excuse for many of their positions today"
Freedom not slavery. It's been that way for a while, tbh.
No intent at all, and I had actually added the correct name and then realized you posted this...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:[
Freedom not slavery. It's been that way for a while, tbh.
Swapping actual shackles for economic ones is still slavery...
Democrats, republicans, (especially) liberartarians, communists, socialists, capitalists, Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Perry (though it doesn't need to be said), Paul, members of the green party, racists, sexists, men, women and liberartarians are all idiots.
My opinion: I'm left leaning. How left I lean is variable. I used to have those hippie commune communist type political opinions, but now my opinions are less radical/insane.
If Romney picks Huntsman as his VP then I'll vote for republican, otherwise Obama can doing what hes doing. IDK about you guys but this economy is working for me right now. Then again its more like I'm working it, most ma fethers aint got swag thats why they mad.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:Then again its more like I'm working it, most ma fethers aint got swag thats why they mad.
Yesyesyes. You sound just like the people I'm surrounded by on a regular basis, and that's perfectly OK. There aren't enough people like you on the internet.
Also. Thinking about registering republican unless some other Democrat throws his hat in.
AustonT wrote:Why would you register as a particular party unless you actually support thier platform?
If i remember correctly, Rushbo wanted everyone to so they could vote Hilary up to present more of a challenge for
President Obama during the Democrat's Primary. Maybe i'm reading more into it than he meant....
. The Federal Government doesn't "create" jobs outside of its direct employment or contracts.
