Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ryan will be able to tell you the last magazine that he has read. He might even be able to name 3 supreme count cases.
His baggage that trails him is a double edged sword. Extreme conservatism excites the radical right and the liberal left. The question is, what will it do to the moderates?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 14:03:51
That depends on the Obama campaign's ability to articulate how Ryan's cuts will hurt the middle class and such.
And they will hurt the middle class, while helping no one except the upper class.
I don't know if he's under the delusion that tax cuts to the rich help the economy (we have many, many decades of evidence that it does not), or if it's just out of base self-interest... but I don't know which one would be worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 14:10:25
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
I doubt that'll hurt anyone's chances, people pretty much expect that from Biden these days.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 14:33:18
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Biden is a moron because he used the same basic metaphor that Republicans used?
Republicans talk about business being unshackled (thereby implying that business is wearing shackles), everybody is cool.
Biden talks about people being put in chains instead of businesses, everybody freaks out.
Go figure...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
How old are you?
Not meaning that as a "grow up" or anything like that, so don't take that the wrong way. But I know they televised the 2008 VP debates. Although I can't tell you from memory if they televised the 2004 VP debate (I was too young to care about politics then).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 14:46:08
I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
whembly wrote:What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?
No. Just no.
Aggregate demand is impacted by the amount the government spends. There is just no doubting this. So when you talk about changes to the overall level of government spending you need to account for the drop in aggregate demand produced by a drop in government spending.
That's just how it is. Ryan's bill doesn't do that, and that means the actual impact of his bill is unknown.
Whether or not you want to say 'boo government' doesn't change the basics of economics.
"boo government"
His bill doesn't go FAR enough. Did you know that overall government spending still goes up with his plan? Just not at the higher rate that the Obama/Democrate's plan.
You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
He's a politician picking a politician. Pretending it's anything else is just spin.
Yeah... can't argue that. I'd just think Rubio is a better strategic pick to win the WH.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
Success and economic growth being enjoyed by all is what you're supposed to pretend to believe in. You know that old Republican thing about a rising tide lifting all ships?
No... don't tell me what I'm "supposed" to believe in... that kind of thinking is the path to socialism and eventually communism (the most destructive economic policies in history). The Risk takers and those who work hard striving for excellence are the driving force in a healthy robust economy. Government's jobs is to provide a stable framework. Excessive government intervention puts a damper on that. The real question is... when is it enough?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I'd argue that the Ryan budget is a real and common talking point and has a much greater effect on the personal lives of the democrats (and to a large extent republicans) voter bases. Where Palin was a hollywood sideshow, that in a lot of ways worked to her credit. It's hard to base a vote around someone you don't take seriously and believe would be sidelined. Palin never did or said anything substantial, she just sort of parroted slogans and talked about hockey. Ryan and his budget are taken seriously as the role models of conservative deficit hawks and he is much more an enemy of the democrat party than even Romney himself. Romney can and will be overshadowed in this election cycle by his VP and I can't think of a time in my life when that has happened before. I suspect ryan will become inextricably linked to the elections primary issues (taxes and the economy) in a way that will be significantly more meaningful than VP choices in recent history.
That's the challenge for Obama and his team. It can't just be 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas' but 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas and therefore the guy who picked him as VP and also the whole Republican idea of the way forward is bad'.
I just don't think its a given to go from the first to the second. You might be right, and Ryan might overshadow the actual Presidential candidate and in that case it'll be pretty easy, but at the end of the day despite the fuss right now he's still just the VP candidate.
I agree with Shuma... Romeny's pick of Ryan will make it harder for him to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:And thats why we can't have a serious discussion about the budget, deficits, or pretty much anything. The candidate that makes that mistake is instantly destroyed by the other side as being EEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!! Doesn't matter which side, or which issue.
Remember that 'fix the budget' thread we had ages ago, where I was trying to point out that bringing the budget into surplus is easy if you have a free hand, but hard in reality because everything is piece of spending, every tax concession is someone's sacred cow?
Well, yeah.
Yup... current entitlement will be on the conversation now... at some point, we'll elect enough adults to address this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
Actually, in the US the biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses. So no, a lot of people don't make it work. Instead they get sick and go bankrupt because of it.
You say bankruptcy is a "bad thing". In a healthy economic society, bankruptcy is a GOOD thing. It's a reset button. So... according to this statistics:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics.aspx From March '11 to March '12 there were over 1.3 million bankruptcies filed. Out of that, based on a recent Harvard studies (I have issues with this study, but lets roll with it), about 40% of those were due to medical expenses. So, during this time period about 520K people filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses.
So... yes, we can make it work.
Regulation and Legal implications DRIVES up the cost. The Administrative architecture is so byzatine, it's assinine.
Yeah, because its a 50 year old reform of a 100 year old system. It's always going to end up a mess of competing interests all taking their own piece of the pie, coupled with a whole mess false economies.
Yup... agree with you here.
The HCR bill sought to tackle a lot of those issues, by the way. It's why the CBO expects there to be a $500 million saving to medicare without a single drop in the standard of care provided.
The politicians says the underline... in the real world... the standard of care will go down.
It's why the HCR should be viewed as the first step to a many layered reform of US healthcare, to limit the amount taken by special interests, and continue to pull out all those false economies.
Nope... it's LOADED with special interests. Big Pharma got goodies (and in the end, they still got shafted)
But the Republicans picked it as the issue they could hurt the Democrats on, and so its unlikely healthcare will be meaningfully touched by a government for a long time yet.
Right... and Democrates were serious all along polishing their halos... gotcha.
Not that I really blame the Republicans over this. Afterall, they went from the brink of oblivion back in to being legitimately considered for government in the course of a few months. But the idiots who let some inane soundbites about socialism convince them to ignore the actual substance of the HCR... those people should be fething ashamed of themselves.
It is socialism (not verbatim, but the direction).
To be fair, there are some good stuff in HCR bill. I think the problem was they tried to fix it "all at once", and in order to get it passed, you had to satisfy all the special interest groups to squeak it by and what's left is a bloated BAD law with a few redeeming stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:No, we didn't. The system has changed fundamentally in those years. Senate and congressional procedure is in no way identical now to either of those times.
I think its less the procedures and more the culture within the two parties, and how that culture has impacted the electorate as a whole. It used to be that variation within the party was accepted, so you could be a Republican because you liked tax cuts and small government and a big army, but you could potentially think that it was a woman's right to choose if she wanted to have an abortion.
But now such variation from the party line is unacceptable, and it makes cross party compromise a whole lot harder.
Yeah, the extremism on both sides are at fault. But let me just say this... I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, but isn't a better (long term) if one party controls only one branch? IE, Republican Congress vs. Democrate WH? It seems that we go all ape-gak crazy when one party controls both branch of government.
So, at some point, we need to understand that the contentious debate between a Republican Congress vs Democratic WH might actually be a healthy thing. Thoughts?
It might be pointed out how artificial such groupings are - how could one's beliefs on the idea size of the armed forces control how likely they were to be for or against abortion? Except increasingly the US is shifting into two camps that follow one artificial grouping of beliefs or the other - it used to be that you could go into rural areas and find people who believed in socially conservative values, but find they'd often differ with Republicans over social programs and farm subsidies. But now those social conservatives are increasingly in favour of more right wing economics. Similarly you used to be able to find upper middle class urbanites who held all the socially acceptable views on social policies, but who didn't believe they should pay more tax to fund someone else's unemployment - but now those people are becoming more liberal economically.
Yeah... it's the stereotyping that is getting outta hand... (I know I fall into that trap).
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Understandable. Like I said, I didn't mean it as an insult. If you were maybe 20 or 22 then I figured you would have better things to do than to pay attention or watch VP debates. In 2004 I was 23 and I cared a little about politics but didn't really follow it that closely. 2008 was the first time I watched all the debates and the first time I realized that there were VP debates as well.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
AustonT wrote:Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore?
Yes. It will be interesting seeing the VP debate. I expect Ryan to beat Biden, just as I expect Obama to beat Romney.
Fyi sebster... I like "debating" you... so, if I'm outta hand, I'll owe a beverage of your choice.
Now this...
sebster wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Typically, private insurance is used more for travel to the USA (I won't set foot across the border without travel insurance).
When I booked my travel insurance for the US I was surprised to find out it wasn't a list 1 cheap insurance company like if I'd gone to Europe. It was in the same group as Africa... not because there's any great risk of something happening like there is in Africa, but because if I did get hurt it'd cost a stupid amount of money compared to if I suffered a similar injury in Europe or here at home.
A few days later an Australian woman suffered an injury in the US and it became a national story here because she was uninsured and the bill was in excess of a million.
That's interesting... never knew that.
Here's the website for booking travel insurance, tool around with it to see how much more companies will charge you to go to the USA, because of the nutty cost of health insurance;
http://www.medibank.com.au/travel-insurance/default.aspx
I put in a trip for one person to the USA, for 15th July to 31 October, and it cost $615. The same trip to the UK was $260. They're both stable countries with no reputation for criminal preying on tourists, only difference there is the cost of treatment if you get hurt and that more than doubles the cost of coverage.
Denmark is $260 as well. Afghanistan cost the same as the USA. Afghanistan... all the extra risk of getting attacked or abducted or whatever, and it breaks even with the USA because of the cost of health coverage.
Right... everything here is MORE expensive. Just the way it is... So how that segues into foreigner's travel cost... that interesting 'cuz now with that, travel expenses is even more spendy for ya'll.
My insurance covers me when I go abroad... but, I'm not sure how that works logistically (*looking for my plan detail).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
Ryan is a smart guy who earned himself a place at the centre of the Republican policy debate. I don't, and you may not, like his beliefs but that doesn't make him an idiot like Palin, who could only parrot concepts put forward by others (and not even that some of the time).
With Romney and Ryan at least we've got a pair of adults running for the presidency, unlike when Bush and Palin were on their respective tickets. They may be adults who want to sink a whole country on the mantra of balance the budget & no new taxes, but they're still adults.
Paul Ryan is "anti-progressive".
Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Watch them on youtube. You don't need a TV, just the same tool your using to read this forum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Fyi sebster... I like "debating" you... so, if I'm outta hand, I'll owe a beverage of your choice.
Now this...
Hats off to you whembly. What a great way to keep the conversation polite and productive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 15:24:43
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
Eh... now that Romney/Ryan are fighting back (McCain never did that)... Gafftastic Biden will be a liability.
Romney/Ryan is "extreme" just like Obama/Biden is "extreme. They're two polar opposites with clear contrast.
AustonT wrote:Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore?
Yes. It will be interesting seeing the VP debate. I expect Ryan to beat Biden, just as I expect Obama to beat Romney.
Right...
Moderator to Biden: What's your favorite color?
Moderator to Ryan: Why do you hate seniors and how many did you throw off the cliff last week?
I'm not sure if Ryan is going to have as much of an impact on the republican ticket as Palin did. A factor with Palin was the fact that McCain was in fact old as dust and you had to face the fact that there was a real possibility that Palin could become President because McCain drops over dead.
If McCain would have been 8 years younger she might have been less of a factor.
whembly wrote:Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
I would strongly advise against voicing that opinion in a public forum in person.
Such a comment is fine over the interwebs where people cannot find you, but that's a sexist comment. If you say something like that to your boss, co-worker, teacher, etc there may be repercussions. For example, if I made a comment like that to my co-worker I would get written up or fired.
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Watch them on youtube. You don't need a TV, just the same tool your using to read this forum.
Agreed... try watching it w/o reading any commentary beforehand.... its what I try to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Fyi sebster... I like "debating" you... so, if I'm outta hand, I'll owe a beverage of your choice.
Now this...
Hats off to you whembly. What a great way to keep the conversation polite and productive.
It's a subject that folks are passionate about and could get heated. Just remember, this is an OT forum for our plastic-crack hobby.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
Eh... now that Romney/Ryan are fighting back (McCain never did that)... Gafftastic Biden will be a liability.
Romney/Ryan is "extreme" just like Obama/Biden is "extreme. They're two polar opposites with clear contrast.
I think Obama is more of a moderate, Biden is probably the more "extreme" of the two.
Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative but you can tell that he doesn't know how to walk that talk. Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
whembly wrote:Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
I would strongly advise against voicing that opinion in a public forum in person.
Such a comment is fine over the interwebs where people cannot find you, but that's a sexist comment. If you say something like that to your boss, co-worker, teacher, etc there may be repercussions. For example, if I made a comment like that to my co-worker I would get written up or fired.
Oh I know...
But does that make it any less true? And, if someone takes the trouble in finding me based on this comment. I'm going to enjoy that meeting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
Eh... now that Romney/Ryan are fighting back (McCain never did that)... Gafftastic Biden will be a liability.
Romney/Ryan is "extreme" just like Obama/Biden is "extreme. They're two polar opposites with clear contrast.
I think Obama is more of a moderate,
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Biden is probably the more "extreme" of the two.
Biden is old school Northeastern Liberal Democrat (from Delaware I think).
Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative
Yup. Unfortunately... I didn't mind "Governor Romney"
Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
Disagree... both Ryan and Obama are the most hardcore with their ideology and if I had to pick, Obama would take the prize.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 15:39:29
whembly wrote:Right...
Moderator to Biden: What's your favorite color?
Moderator to Ryan: Why do you hate seniors and how many did you throw off the cliff last week?
Did you actually watch any of the debates? The questions do not come out like that.
He said "unchain wall street!... he's going to out you back in chains!"
Its not like he didn't do it on purpose, I reckon he probably thought it was pretty funny.
It wasn't, but its hardly a gaffe. I also don't think its even remotely a big deal.
Saying that using those words makes you a racist for example, is clearly absurd.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
whembly wrote:But does that make it any less true? And, if someone takes the trouble in finding me based on this comment. I'm going to enjoy that meeting.
That is a matter of opinion. I think that ones sex does not prohibit one from doing a job. We cannot prove or disprove opinions, simply agree to disagree
I doubt you will have someone hound you down for a sexist comment on Dakka. The internet is full of far more offensive things. At worst you will be banned if your comments highly offend a woman here.
whembly wrote:By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Can you back up that claim please?
I gave you the wikipedia links of an extreme left leaning candidate and Obama. Can you show me some other moderates that are hard right of Obama?
A list of policies is best here, not a hypothetical description. Policies are what define a candidate's actions and what we should vote on.
d-usa wrote:Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative but you can tell that he doesn't know how to walk that talk. Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
Romney is the classic politician. He will say anything to get elected. That's why he flip-flops so often.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 15:49:54
@labmouse42... goober'ed up the parsing... 2nd attempt... gah... still didn't work...
Denny is a nutter, they come in all shape and sizes (just like the extreme righties!)
Obama is a "leftist" (left to the classical liberals).
whembly wrote:Right...
Moderator to Biden: What's your favorite color?
Moderator to Ryan: Why do you hate seniors and how many did you throw off the cliff last week?
Did you actually watch any of the debates? The questions do not come out like that.
Forgot my sarcasm switch... sorry.
But, the "types" of questions from these Moderators are suspect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:But does that make it any less true? And, if someone takes the trouble in finding me based on this comment. I'm going to enjoy that meeting.
That is a matter of opinion. I think that ones sex does not prohibit one from doing a job. We cannot prove or disprove opinions, simply agree to disagree
I doubt you will have someone hound you down for a sexist comment on Dakka. The internet is full of far more offensive things. At worst you will be banned if your comments highly offend a woman here.
I didn't think it was THAT sexist. o.O
whembly wrote:By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Can you back up that claim please?
Sure... might take me awhile... stay tuned...
I gave you the wikipedia links of an extreme left leaning candidate and Obama. Can you show me some other moderates that are hard right of Obama?
A list of policies is best here, not a hypothetical description. Policies are what define a candidate's actions and what we should vote on.
Here's the problem... the moderates are REALLY short in supply. I'd have to check (no proof yet)... but Liberman I would think it's to the right of Obama.
d-usa wrote:Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative but you can tell that he doesn't know how to walk that talk. Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
Romney is the classic politician. He will say anything to get elected. That's why he flip-flops so often.
They're all politians... they all "flip-flop"... I never understand why there's so much angst about this. People change their mind all the time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 16:06:03
This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.
The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial executions virtually anywhere in the world ( www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/047/2012/en ), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage.
Democratic and, especially, some Republican candidates, will benefit massively from new legislation that permits them to receive unlimited and unaccountable funding. This means a significant shift of political power to the very moneyed interests that earlier elections tried to contain. Super PACs will inevitably reshape the system and undermine democracy. It would be naïve to suppose that a President Gingrich would feel no obligations towards his generous backer, Sheldon Adelson, one of the country's most influential men. Or a President Santorum towards billionaire mutual fund tycoon, Foster Freiss. (Santorum emerged as the most authoritarian candidate, not the least for his extreme stand against abortion and condom sales.) Or a President Paul, whose largest single donor, billionaire Peter Thiel, founded a controversial defence company contracting to the CIA and the FBI. Last year it was caught operating an illegal spy ring targeting opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce. In our opinion Romney, despite his consistent contempt for the impoverished, is correctly described as the weather vane candidate. He shares another similarity with Obama. His corporate-friendly health care plan for Massachusetts was strikingly similar to the President's "compromise" package. The emergence of the Tea Party enables an increasingly extreme GOP to present itself as middle-of-the road — between an ultra right movement with "some good ideas that might go a bit too far" and, on the other side, a dangerous "socialist" president.
The smaller non-Tea parties provide the only substantial electoral diversity — virtually unreported — in their Sisyphean struggle against the two mountainous conservative machines. Identity issues like gay marriage disguise the absence of fundamental differences and any real contrast of vision. Since FDR, the mainstream American "Left" has been much more concerned with the social rather than the economic scale. Identity politics; issues like peace, immigration, gay and women's rights, prayers in school have assumed far greater importance than matters like pensions and minimum wages that preoccupy their counterparts in other democracies. Hence the appeal of Ron Paul to many liberals, despite his far-right economics.
Our earlier assertion stil holds: that Ron Paul may yet emerge as the last person left standing at the Republican convention. His tenacious supporters are unnerving GOP headquarters by grasping control of the party apparatus in a growing number of states, and suing the National Party Chair and various state parties for the right to vote freely at the convention — in other words, the right to vote for Ron Paul. With Paul as presidential candidate, the Republicans could expect something that Romney wouldn't deliver: a significant crossover vote from Democrats.
If Romney succeeds in his struggle to consolidate party support but goes on to lose the election, it would hardly be devastating for mainstream Republicans. During a second term of Obama, they would no doubt continue to frame the debates.
When the leaders of the Green Party and the Tea Party have been selected, their names will be included on this chart.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 16:09:49
whembly wrote:@labmouse42... goober'ed up the parsing... 2nd attempt
Denny is a nutter, they come in all shape and sizes (just like the extreme righties!)
Obama is a "leftist" (left to the classical liberals).
Understandable how the parsing works out.
I am still not sold on Obama being hard left of center. He's slightly left of center, but not hard left. Lets take a lot at his political goals/current policies.
Foreign Policy * Obama has oversaw the end of one war.
* Obama has oversaw the killing of Bin Laden
* Obama has prevented another quagmire in Libya while helping locals to kill Gaddafi
He seems pretty moderate on this. I think Regan would have been proud.
Economy Policy * On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced a bill in the Senate (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on pay."
* Obama favored the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, and he voted to end the filibuster against a bill to accomplish that. He favored raising it to $9.50 an hour by 2011, and then indexing it for inflation afterwards.
* Obama wants 5,000 failing schools to close, and then reopen with new principals and teachers
* In his New Energy For America plan, Obama proposes to reduce overall U.S. oil consumption by at least 35%, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030 in order to offset imports from OPEC nations. And by 2011 the United States was said to be "awash with domestic oil and increasingly divorced and less reliant on foreign imports
He's a bit left of center on this. Obama pushes for the little guy and wants the rich to pay more in taxes. If he was hard left he would have cut the military budget greatly.
Social Policy * Obama has expressed support of bans on some late-term abortions, provided they include exemptions for the mental and physical health of the mother.
* Obama voted for a $100 million education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people
* Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage
* On June 25, 2008, Obama condemned United States Supreme Court decision Kennedy v. Louisiana, which outlawed the death penalty for a child rapist when the victim was not killed. He said that states have the right to consider capital punishment, but cited concern about the possibility of unfairness in some sentences
* Obama announced that he favors measures that respect Second Amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals. He further stated that he supports banning private transfers of firearms at gun shows (referred to as "closing the gun show loophole"), "making guns in this country childproof", and permanently reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban
He's slightly to the left on this. Working to reduce teen pregnancy, pushing for death penalty are not 'hard left' views.
If you like, I can provide 'hard left' views on each of those categories. It would help to illustrate how Obama is not 'hard left' or even 'very left'.
Can you provide examples of moderates that have policy decisions that are 'right' of Obama?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Here's the problem... the moderates are REALLY short in supply. I'd have to check (no proof yet)... but Liberman I would think it's to the right of Obama.
Moderate Republicans, yes. Democrats have not changed that much. Go to that NPR article about the increased shift to the right by Republicans over the past ~10 years or so. If you don't trust NPR, then look at it from other sources. It's no big secret that the Republican base has been shifting hard right. By contrast, the Democrats which have stayed about the same appear to be much more left in comparison now. If the left was shifting hard left, we would be having discussions of legalizing pot, reduced military spending, and free college for all youth.
While he officially considers himself a member of the Democratic party, Lieberman has been accused of being more conservative than many Republicans and a political maverick since he often stands up to his party on issues on which he disagrees with them. He lost the Democratic Party nomination in the 2006 election to a more partisanly pure candidate, so he ran as an independent candidate to retain his senate seat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
If you read his actions, Liberman was in the wrong party. (IMHO so is Ron Paul, but that's another discussion)
ps - good discussion, I'm really enjoying it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 16:31:39
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Watch them on youtube. You don't need a TV, just the same tool your using to read this forum.
No fething way?!
Hey guys we can watch clips of important events on YouTube now!
Really guy...really?
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
I would strongly advise against voicing that opinion in a public forum in person.
Such a comment is fine over the interwebs where people cannot find you, but that's a sexist comment. If you say something like that to your boss, co-worker, teacher, etc there may be repercussions. For example, if I made a comment like that to my co-worker I would get written up or fired.
BS, capital B capital S bull gak. It's absolutely true. If anything the Democrat electorate told the rest of us they could stomach a black man before a white woman in the 2008 primary. The Republican establishment tossed Palin out to see what would happen if they made the Dems look sexist...and somehow that backfired by finding the most batgak crazy woman they could put on the ticket. In their defense maybe they didn't know she was insane.
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Come again? I mean I don't agree at the attempt to portray Obama as a moderate or a centrist, but he's not exactly an extreme lefty either. At his very worst he lands somewhere between Ike and FDR.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
@labmouse42 (got loads of stuff saved somewhere gotta find 'em... these are old)
From his BIO, Barack Obama came into politics from the precincts of the Harringtonian left wing. He was a member in Chicago of the socialist New Party, which grew out of the activism of the Democratic Socialists of America.
[T]hrough Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member.
Aren't we seeing a pattern here? One interaction with one old communist isn't particularly troubling. A handful of sporadic interactions with a handful of radical left-wingers may not be particularly troubling. But a lifelong pattern of extended associations and alliances with scores of fringe, America-hating radicals is very, very troubling indeed.
Just to be clear:
None of these facts, by itself, tells you that much about Barack Obama. A reasonable person should, however, be able to look at this motley crew of left-wing communists and America-haters, realize that Barack Obama's rolodex is a veritableWho's Who of American Socialism, be very, very disturbed by that fact and ask some very probing questions about WHO Barack Obama is, WHAT he believes, and WHY this gang of radical America-haters considers Barack Obama such a good friend.
These are all signs of socialist ideologues and programs favored by Barack Obama who had hoped that the US would be more similar to social-democratic welfare states of Europe.
So... Mr. Obama... no thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:@labmouse42... goober'ed up the parsing... 2nd attempt
Denny is a nutter, they come in all shape and sizes (just like the extreme righties!)
Obama is a "leftist" (left to the classical liberals).
Understandable how the parsing works out.
I am still not sold on Obama being hard left of center. He's slightly left of center, but not hard left. Lets take a lot at his political goals/current policies.
Foreign Policy * Obama has oversaw the end of one war.
* Obama has oversaw the killing of Bin Laden
* Obama has prevented another quagmire in Libya while helping locals to kill Gaddafi
He seems pretty moderate on this. I think Regan would have been proud.
Spoiler:
Economy Policy * On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced a bill in the Senate (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on pay."
* Obama favored the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, and he voted to end the filibuster against a bill to accomplish that. He favored raising it to $9.50 an hour by 2011, and then indexing it for inflation afterwards.
* Obama wants 5,000 failing schools to close, and then reopen with new principals and teachers
* In his New Energy For America plan, Obama proposes to reduce overall U.S. oil consumption by at least 35%, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030 in order to offset imports from OPEC nations. And by 2011 the United States was said to be "awash with domestic oil and increasingly divorced and less reliant on foreign imports
He's a bit left of center on this. Obama pushes for the little guy and wants the rich to pay more in taxes. If he was hard left he would have cut the military budget greatly.
Social Policy * Obama has expressed support of bans on some late-term abortions, provided they include exemptions for the mental and physical health of the mother.
* Obama voted for a $100 million education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people
* Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage
* On June 25, 2008, Obama condemned United States Supreme Court decision Kennedy v. Louisiana, which outlawed the death penalty for a child rapist when the victim was not killed. He said that states have the right to consider capital punishment, but cited concern about the possibility of unfairness in some sentences
* Obama announced that he favors measures that respect Second Amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals. He further stated that he supports banning private transfers of firearms at gun shows (referred to as "closing the gun show loophole"), "making guns in this country childproof", and permanently reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban
He's slightly to the left on this. Working to reduce teen pregnancy, pushing for death penalty are not 'hard left' views.
If you like, I can provide 'hard left' views on each of those categories. It would help to illustrate how Obama is not 'hard left' or even 'very left'.
Can you provide examples of moderates that have policy decisions that are 'right' of Obama?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Here's the problem... the moderates are REALLY short in supply. I'd have to check (no proof yet)... but Liberman I would think it's to the right of Obama.
Moderate Republicans, yes. Democrats have not changed that much. Go to that NPR article about the increased shift to the right by Republicans over the past ~10 years or so. If you don't trust NPR, then look at it from other sources. It's no big secret that the Republican base has been shifting hard right. By contrast, the Democrats which have stayed about the same appear to be much more left in comparison now. If the left was shifting hard left, we would be having discussions of legalizing pot, reduced military spending, and free college for all youth.
While he officially considers himself a member of the Democratic party, Lieberman has been accused of being more conservative than many Republicans and a political maverick since he often stands up to his party on issues on which he disagrees with them. He lost the Democratic Party nomination in the 2006 election to a more partisanly pure candidate, so he ran as an independent candidate to retain his senate seat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
If you read his actions, Liberman was in the wrong party. (IMHO so is Ron Paul, but that's another discussion)
ps - good discussion, I'm really enjoying it.
Gotta work... I'll try responding later.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 16:44:51
Our earlier assertion stil holds: that Ron Paul may yet emerge as the last person left standing at the Republican convention.
Political compass has really lost track of reality.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Come again? I mean I don't agree at the attempt to portray Obama as a moderate or a centrist, but he's not exactly an extreme lefty either. At his very worst he lands somewhere between Ike and FDR.
Half of the dems are far left (obama included)... and likewise, the righty are getting more extreme.
See this site on senate voting history:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm Look at the bottom chart, you'll see both parties drifting away from each other. That's why we're seeing more severe ideological "debates" than ever before.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 16:54:06
whembly wrote:t's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots. [and other such trash vomited out in this thread like that old "obama doesn't salute" rumor]
This is such a blatant set of lies and misrepresentations that I have to wonder on your mental connection with reality if you honestly believe this gak.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 17:03:50
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
