2012 Republican News
Well, the Iowa straw polls are in a couple days, and the 2012 presidential campaign is well underway. While the field of candidates for the GOP isn't set yet (I expect the field to both expand and contract as the election approaches), there are some politicians who have already declared their candidacy. Once they've opened their mouths to declare, they make room for their feet.
Today's foot-in-the-mouth subject of derision is Mitt Romney. He's famously slick and his pro-business agenda slipped out today in this exchange:
Speaking to an occasionally rowdy crowd two days before the Ames Straw poll, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made what seems likely to become a much-discussed flub, declaring to a group of Iowans that "corporations are people."
Pressed by an attendee at the Iowa State Fair on Thursday as to why he was focusing on entitlement reforms as a means of deficit reduction over asking corporations to share part of the burden, the GOP frontrunner shot back:
"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."
Read more: http://technorati.com/politics/article/corporations-are-people-too-mdash-mitt/#ixzz1UksIF4HP
Really? Corporations are people? Bwahahahahahaha! Puh-LEASE. News flash--corporations are NOT people. I accept that this is a gaffe, a speaking mistake. But...I believe Mitt Romney's mistake here is not that he believes that corporations are people, but that he confessed this belief out loud.
Unfortunately, I still do not see a viable candidate from the right side.
Gonna be the lesser of two ... again.
<sigh>
Hahahhahhahaaaaaa. Corporations are people too. Dumb slimy ass.
♪
"Be kind to every Who on every speck.
Every Who may be somebody's mother..." ♪
Let the circus begin! :jig:
V and Monkey -- you are both grossly, hugely, infinitely wrong about this.
Just who the FUCK makes corporations in the first place, you two? Martians? Stromatolites?
It takes humans to do business. That is Romney's point, and you two, along with the jackass in the background of the soundbite who burst out laughing, all have points on the tops of your heads.
Crush and destroy Obama and the Socialist Democrats! Let Libertarianism wash them away!
I shall call him Biff. Biff Romney Guerrilla.
[YOUTUBE]jetla5RBAHA[/YOUTUBE]
Am I the only one who is amused by UG's political contortionism here? When it comes to invading other countries, he's all "pro-democracy" and "down with the anti-democrats".
Flip to US politics and he's "Down with the Democrats!" and "Up Republicanism".
I've got a new user title for him. The Republican Guard. I think it is available.
I especially liked the following:
Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."
Yeah, those earnings go to people, alright - people called CEO's who get outrageous salaries whether their corporation is doing well or not.
Hey, Mitt! The answer for the board and a thousand dollars is
CEO's pockets! Got that, big guy?
Yes, the part about how only 9% of Texas Republicans would vote for him for President doesn't surprise me in the least. The guy is a douchebag of the highest order, and everyone here knows that.
I don't want another religious right-wing nut in the White House but Obama has to go...
Like you're always saying... be careful what you wish for.
Like you're always saying... be careful what you wish for.
Yea, I agree. It could be a slippery slope. I would settle for the Republickins winning back the Senate, narrowly, and keeping the House, while Obama gets re-elected vs another swing of the pendulum to a single party control. I would really like to see the introduction of a strong minority party in both houses that would force more compromise. Any way you look at it the whole system of fucked up. I am beginning to hate them all.
Me too, Merc. (wow, I agree with you on something! ;))
I'd like the election process cleaned up and money, lobbyists, PAC's, super-PAC's, and all the buying and selling of politicians eliminated. Then, we might could get something useful done.
Yeah yeah, I know. Never gonna happen.
Aside from that, I'd also like to see the tea party and the rest of the extremists sent packing as well
I expect the Tea Party to start goose marching in the streets any time now.
Cellar bothers and sisters, I have reviewed this thread. It is time to speak.
You pretty much universally agree, Washington (except Glatt) is a mess - beyond redemption.
You know what must be done.
You are equipped, you are able. Some of you are already unemployed, so you'll have time.
Rise up! Rise up, American Dwellars! Seize back your country.
All tongue in cheek, of course, but half-seriously, I think the entire US executive could be replaced by US dwellars and congress replaced by votes from lurkers, and the US would be better off for it.
Oh and Bruce, those are the most plausible looking candidates I've seen yet.
The Republicans are screaming about "taking back our country" just like the Democrats did last Presidential cycle. That phrase creeps me out.
I'm pretty sure I'm just gonna move in with Zen. Zen, you have a couch, right?
This was interesting...
12 Things Texans Know About Gov. Rick Perry That You Should, Too
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/12-things-texans-know-about-gov-rick-perry-that-you-should-too/240638/#slide1
Could you paraphrase, for those of us whose browsers just completely locked up after clicking this link and had to be ctrl-alt-deleted, twice in a row?
Could you paraphrase, for those of us whose browsers just completely locked up after clicking this link and had to be ctrl-alt-deleted, twice in a row?
Few Texans Would Vote for Him
As people have been saying, Perry's not exactly popular in his home state (but, as he told Neil Cavuto last week, "a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown."). An independent poll released June 16 showed that only 9 percent of likely Republican voters in Texas would support him for president.
He Supported Al Gore in '88
When Perry first entered politics as a candidate for the Texas House in 1984, he was a Democrat. He remained a Democrat until he ran for Agriculture Commissioner in 1989, when he joined the Republican party. (In 1988, he not only endorsed Al Gore for president, he headed up his campaign in Texas.)
'Adios, MoFo'
His infamous catchphrase from 2005 later became a Texas Democratic campaign slogan: "Adios, MoFo." He had been referring to a reporter when he thought he was off-mic. (Or he knew he was still on-mic, and wanted to look like a bad-ass.)
Conspiracy Theory: He Backs Transnational Government
In 2007 -- way before all his anti-federal ranting -- Perry pushed hard for the Trans-Texas Corridor super highway, a.k.a. the "North American Union" under NAFTA. Conspiracy theorists in Texas (i.e. Alex Jones) accused him of trying to create a single nation consisting of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., living under one currency, the Amero.
Sued Over HPV Vaccines
In 2007, he bypassed the Texas legislature and signed an executive order to require HPV vaccines for all 6th grade girls. It did not sit well with conservative Christians and a lawsuit was filed by a group of concerned parents. Perry's former chief of staff Mike Toomey was a lobbyist for Merck, which created Gardisil, at the time. The legislature repealed his order.
Coyotegate
Border Cameras, Sanctuary Cities
In 2006, Perry proposed installing hundreds of night vision cameras along the border that would allow anyone to view it live online. During the regular legislative session this year, a bid to create sanctuary cities didn't pass, but Perry added them to the special session agenda. (Plus he has said he thinks Juarez is the most dangerous city "in America.")
He's Gotten More Religious
The governor has become increasingly Christian over the years, asking Texans to pray for rain and to join him in a Day of Prayer and Fasting to solve the nation's ills. It was sponsored by the American Family Association, which is known for its extreme anti-gay views.
He Pals Around with Palin
Sarah Palin endorsed him in the last gubernatorial campaign, making public appearances with him. It would be pretty great to see these two on the stage together. Ditto Rudy Giuliani.
He Didn't Blame BP for the Spill
Last year Perry called the BP oil spill an "act of God." (He considers many things "acts of God.")
He's Not Popular with W
Bush loyalists can't stand Perry. But that might be a good thing
Friends With Ted Nugent
A Nader Connection
Perry's top adviser Dave Carney was accused of helping collect signatures for the Ralph Nader campaign in order to help Republicans in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.
Thanks.
A friend of mine texted me today: "Also I'm pretty sure Rick Perry dyed his hair. Who does that slick faggot think he's fooling?" lol
Straight from the horse's mouth, although I don't know of this counts because the guy that texted this is originally from Oklahoma.
An interesting article. It lays out the contrasts between Perry and Obama pretty thoroughly and summarizes the the condition of Texas' health care, education, budget, ect.
Despite its strong economy, Texas ranks low on many social markers. It has the fourth- highest poverty rate, the seventh-highest teenage birth rate, and the lowest rate of people over 25 with a high school degree.
*Sigh*
Teabag scum IMHO. If making the conditions for corporations favorable, allowed for favorable conditions for society, why would Texas have such a clear issue with poverty, education and lack of health care?
Am I the only one who is amused by UG's political contortionism here? When it comes to invading other countries, he's all "pro-democracy" and "down with the anti-democrats".
Flip to US politics and he's "Down with the Democrats!" and "Up Republicanism".
I see you are not a deep student of US political philosophies, Zen. Well, you're on the outside looking in and you're not majoring in US studies, so it's understandable. You've managed to confuse labels with working philosophies -- and frankly in US politics the labels of the Big Two aren't powerfully indicative of what they believe in, or indeed of any difference in what they believe in either.
For about the last thirty or forty years, the Big Two parties (and a two-party system is a natural result of winner-take-all Electoral College rules for the one duumvirate office it directly affects, the Presidency with the Vice Presidency) have implemented an enthusiasm for Great Big Government as the solution to most Federal-size problems, assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed problems. When both Democratic and Republican Parties contained a continuum from conservative to progressivist solons, they were about like the difference between one GM company's car and another GM company's car -- that is, not much.
This has in the last fifteen years or so become less the case, though this conversion is by no means complete or desired. The Democratic Party has become increasingly socialist in its ideas, and the Republicans, always inclined to be business sorts, rather more capitalistic than before. Some sorting by ideology has been going on.
Capitalism is associated with making deals, mutually beneficial exchanges. This is what naturally goes on between humans. It is altogether independent of government in its fundamentals.
Socialism is not, and hence requires the force of the State to cause socialist things and policies to happen. It is collectivist rather than giving the individual his due regard.
Socialism and Communism make a big deal out of "the collective," which they suppose to be a virtuous entity.
There is no such thing as "the collective." If human beings were involuntary telepaths, maybe there might be.
The Democratic side has increasingly set about buying votes by pandering, to this group, to that group, to anything they think is a bloc. It is not fundamentally different from Roman Senators pandering to the mob with promises of
panem et circenses, and having to find inflationary measures to cover the bills for all that. The Republicans are generally less inclined to embarrass themselves so -- of late. So, yes, I am more impressed with the
virtu and the virtues of the Republicans, for now.
It has gotten to the point where Democratic politicians hint very broadly, if induced to comment, that scandals that destroy Republican politicians only scuff Democrats up, because Democrats aren't expected to behave with propriety or integrity, or with character either. Isn't that just fucking peachy.
This is not to say Republican solons have not merrily gone along with the aggrandizement of the State and the enlargement of the public sector. They have done this very thing to feast out of the Federal pork barrel, as the American metaphor has had it since very early in the nineteenth century -- getting Federal goodies for the benefit of the home constituency. Yep, buying votes with the mob.
In the old days, the US Senate was supposed to be designed to be a set of representatives (small R here) not elected by the population as a whole, but by the Legislatures of the several States of the Union instead -- that the states' Senators were to more directly represent (and Federally empower) their respective State governments, every state on an equal footing regardless of population or economic strength. Just in case of the madness of crowds, was part of the original thinking. What with this and that, this seemed too oligopolistic and was eventually amended to having Senators chosen by direct election, serving rather lengthy terms of office of six years, compared to the House of Representatives' two-year terms. Previous to the relevant Amendment, the electorate's effect on choosing the two Senators of its state was indirect -- in voting for the State Legislators, choosing those who chose the Senators. But still the feature of one house of Congress (the entire Legislative Branch) being of equal representation by state while the other be of representation by population was retained even with the direct election of Senators.
A few pols and pundits wonder if perhaps this should not be reinstated. The idea has attracted more "Hm, that's interesting" than traction.
The Libertarian Party, a tiny US third party that is generally kept frozen out of national-level elections and hence does not make a great international ripple, is implacably opposed to the aggrandizement of the State and to the heavy taxation that fuels an aggrandized State. I find their arguments persuasive on the domestic front. I also find the Democratic Party to be the party most bitterly opposed to Libertarian ideas. The Republicans, while not a perfect fit, are considerably less so. Such opposition as Republicans have to Libertarian philosophies is weaker. The Libertarians are far too pacifist, apparently on the grounds that a Fed with a small army is a less expensive Fed -- I do not think they are being real about the way to safeguard US economic interests anywhere not run by a libertarian-minded democracy but by oligarchy instead. Only some oligarchies are comparatively benevolent; the common run are despotic, and all of America's serious foreign policy troubles come from undemocratic, despotically run societies.
The democratic societies run, well, variations upon the American model: free markets and representative government closely accountable for its behavior to the citizenry. Since WW2, they have found out for themselves that it works. It gets called the "American model" of an economy and a social order in the main because somebody somewhere had to do it first, and due regard should be given to how parts of Europe contained within their social thinking the seeds the flowered largely upon the North American continent. A China could not have come up with what we do. A France really couldn't, nor Holland or Belgium, and Spain quite simply didn't. It was an English thing, really.
Yea, I agree. It could be a slippery slope. I would settle for the Republickins winning back the Senate, narrowly, and keeping the House, while Obama gets re-elected vs another swing of the pendulum to a single party control. I would really like to see the introduction of a strong minority party in both houses that would force more compromise. Any way you look at it the whole system of fucked up. I am beginning to hate them all.
NOW you're beginning to get it, Merc. Glad to see you're coming around!
Did anyone else notice the news blackout concerning Ron Paul?
See Stewart bit.Yeh, I did. Apparently the media is deciding who should be considered for us.
My plan is to move off the grid, dig and big hole in the ground and buy more ammo. The rest of you are on your own.
I'm pretty sure I'm just gonna move in with Zen. Zen, you have a couch, right?
Could you hit up Alec Baldwin for that unused plane ticket? It's not like he's going anywhere.
A Wishful Ad-Hominem Ad
And Gallup is saying, essentially, that merely eleven in a hundred Americans is willing to say "Obama In 2012." There's always some poor bastard that doesn't get the word, and a couple of them post here.
that merely eleven in a hundred Americans is willing to
:eek:
Who hacked UG's account?
If there were any intelligent, non-freak candidates, other than Obama, to vote for, I would definately consider it. As it stands, I am NOT willing to accept what these morons are selling just to see Obama out of office. I mean really...have you all looked at the candidates in depth? :eek::eyebrow::greenface. It's enough to make me want to move out of the country.
And for the record, my issue with Obama is that he is too neutral and not tough enough. I want someone in there who will FIGHT for the things I believe in, not cave at the slightest opposition.
They're all liars, hypocrites, and greedy mofo's, not to mention bought and paid for. Not a one of them has the best interests of the majority of the American public at heart. And they're not listening to us so they never will be a true representative of the people. They represent the dollar and corporate power, not me.
Apols to all the People Of Faith here, but I have a deep seated suspicion of anyone who gets their "wisdom" from an old book that essentially has been messed around with for over a century until it passed muster by committee.
I have more respect for the Constitution, simply because it's newer and hasn't been allowed to change. But even that was written by political white men in a time when women were not allowed to vote and people were considered chattel.
I don't care an awful lot for Nick Clegg (Deputy Leader) but at least he's an atheist, and doesn't have a big guy in the sky telling him what to do.
Well, his wife is Catholic, so substitute Big Guy for Lady....
Stormie - you are on a roll lately. I couldn't agree more.
Obama has been tentative and the rule by polls, terrible.
The alternatives are truly frightening and leave one with no alternative. Things are gonna suck for a long time. :(
Isn't Obama kind of hampered in what he can and can't do as President though? I don't even pretend to understand the US political system, it seems as byzantine and illogical as my own, but watching from over here I am often surprised at how powerless the President seems as an individual player. Is that the case, or is it just that he hasn;t played the system well enough to be effective?
During the debt ceiling fiasco, people were saying that he should stick to his guns and fight for what it is he stands for, but had he done that then the negotiations would have failed and the US would have defaulted on its bills. There didn't appear to be any mechanism for him to impose a solution.
The Prime Minister is a much more powerful figure in British politics. Similar checks and balances exist, but the PM's capacity for action and executive decision seems much more extensive.
Isn't Obama kind of hampered in what he can and can't do as President though?
In addition to self-imposed limits, like having to play the adult and not let the country to default, there is the additional limit caused by the
filibuster.
When the Democrats were in the minority, even though they filibustered or used the threat of
filibuster sparingly, Ann Coulter made the rounds of conservative talk shows and correctly stated that the filibuster is a rule and has no backing in law or the Constitution. When the Democrats gained the majority she was strangely silent:cool:. The Republican minority used filibusters at least 7 times more often than Democrats had ever done. This was one of the major reasons why many of the Obama administration initiatives failed to pass.
It was also, ironically, one of the reasons Republicans were able to retake the House of Representatives. Voters were right to ask why the Obama failed to fulfill his promises. Unfortunately, in the election that followed, they ended up rewarding the obstructionists that caused the situation that they were complaining about. They also set the stage for gridlock.
Isn't Obama kind of hampered in what he can and can't do as President though?
Yes. Any president is limited in what he or she can do by the restrictions placed upon them by the five or six corporations that currently own and run the US. This is why it doesn't really matter who you vote for, it's like choosing between salt or pepper on your shit sandwich.
Or to put it less scatalogically: different puppets, same puppeteers.
Isn't Obama kind of hampered in what he can and can't do as President though?
The president was hampered by extremists in his party who could not compromise (during Health Care) even when they were the majority. Eventually they had to compromise. But only after costing Obama so much time and so much political capital. As a result, moderate Democrats (and not extremist Democrats) took it on the chin in the mid-term elections. So we ended up with a Congress of even more extremists - less moderates.
Extremists will do anything - harm the American economy - to promote their wacko agenda. They literally took the nation to the verge of default because their political agenda, inspired by Limbaugh genius, has given us so many good things - ie Mission Accomplished and the American surrender in Afghanistan. America may have never had a Congress so wacko extremist since before the Civil War when extremists also created what they wanted.
No leader can fix that. Obama has defined objectives. In a Congress dominated by mental midgets in both parties, Obama has done well. After three years, he cannot even get many of his subordinate officers approved by Congress. That never happened before. But wackos, especially those educated by Faux News, are that dumb as to want to destroy America. Even a Nobel Prize winning quit trying to take an office because Congress is now so dumb at to put secret holds on so many nominations. Wackos who, even in the Cellar, have had their intelligence questioned for good reason.
Wackos once did not dominate Congress. One cannot blame Obama for so many Americans so dumb as to listen to Rush Limbaugh and recite Ann Coulter 'wisdom'.
Christine O'Donnell is a perfect example of what extremist call and promoted as a good Senator. Who could be so easily manipulated as to think Palin is anything but a buffoon? How does a president get anything done in a Congress approved by so many who also like O'Donnell? It cannot happen. Mental midgets now run Washington because so may will do exactly what extremist talk radio tells them.
How many wacko extremists apologize for massacring 4.500 American soldiers uselessly in Iraq? That would mean admitting to being manipulated by soundbytes. Extremists cannot be that honest.
Many years ago, I warned our overseas brethren how wacko extremists in this nation were worshipping Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. I noted how overseas observers could not understand how wacko extremists were routinely brainwashed by soundbytes multiple times daily. We now have what I had warned about almost a decade ago. You cannot blame Obama for an America where white males now obtain less education then their parents. Limbaugh, et al disparage the bourgeois and intelligentsia. And extremist say that is good.
How do we change that? I have a pitchfork and a torch, if that helps.
Extremists will do anything - harm the American economy - to promote their wacko agenda. They literally took the nation to the verge of default because their political agenda, inspired by Limbaugh genius, has given us so many good things - ie Mission Accomplished and the American surrender in Afghanistan. America may have never had a Congress so wacko extremist since before the Civil War when extremists also created what they wanted.
I said this before the election, though not so well: personal over country. That's patriotism?
We the people. Me the people. Ugh.
The president was hampered by extremists in his party who could not compromise (during Health Care) even when they were the majority. Eventually they had to compromise. But only after costing Obama so much time and so much political capital. As a result, moderate Democrats (and not extremist Democrats) took it on the chin in the mid-term elections. So we ended up with a Congress of even more extremists - less moderates.
Extremists will do anything - harm the American economy - to promote their wacko agenda. They literally took the nation to the verge of default because their political agenda, inspired by Limbaugh genius, has given us so many good things - ie Mission Accomplished and the American surrender in Afghanistan. America may have never had a Congress so wacko extremist since before the Civil War when extremists also created what they wanted.
No leader can fix that. Obama has defined objectives. In a Congress dominated by mental midgets in both parties, Obama has done well. After three years, he cannot even get many of his subordinate officers approved by Congress. That never happened before. But wackos, especially those educated by Faux News, are that dumb as to want to destroy America. Even a Nobel Prize winning quit trying to take an office because Congress is now so dumb at to put secret holds on so many nominations. Wackos who, even in the Cellar, have had their intelligence questioned for good reason.
Wackos once did not dominate Congress. One cannot blame Obama for so many Americans so dumb as to listen to Rush Limbaugh and recite Ann Coulter 'wisdom'.
Christine O'Donnell is a perfect example of what extremist call and promoted as a good Senator. Who could be so easily manipulated as to think Palin is anything but a buffoon? How does a president get anything done in a Congress approved by so many who also like O'Donnell? It cannot happen. Mental midgets now run Washington because so may will do exactly what extremist talk radio tells them.
How many wacko extremists apologize for massacring 4.500 American soldiers uselessly in Iraq? That would mean admitting to being manipulated by soundbytes. Extremists cannot be that honest.
Many years ago, I warned our overseas brethren how wacko extremists in this nation were worshipping Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. I noted how overseas observers could not understand how wacko extremists were routinely brainwashed by soundbytes multiple times daily. We now have what I had warned about almost a decade ago. You cannot blame Obama for an America where white males now obtain less education then their parents. Limbaugh, et al disparage the bourgeois and intelligentsia. And extremist say that is good.
Merely set dressing and has nothing to do with the script or the producers of the play.
I think the problems are the wacko extremists on both sides, and unfortunately, the majority are extremists now. Moderates are an endangered species.
Why are we here?
I speculate that it's gerrymandering. The incumbents are drawing the lines on the map when the new census comes out, and they are drawing the lines so that they have a solid base to be reelected. So now you have districts that lean heavily Democrat or heavily Republican, but there are very few that are balanced. In a balanced district, you have to appeal to the moderate swing voters to win an election. In a gerrymandered district, you only have to appeal to your base.
Add to this the rise of the internet over the last decade or two, and like minded people finding each other on political forums. They get into this feedback loop where they think everyone agrees with them and those other people are the enemy.
And then you have the media. The Right seems to have more success at these Rush Limbaugh and Fox news type shows that get everyone marching together in an extremist lockstep formation. But the Left has made feeble attempts to go down that path as well.
Right now it all seems worse, because we are in the primaries, and the Republicans are speaking only to their base right now. So they sound like wacko extremists. It will be amusing to watch them try to change their rhetoric in several months when they try to appeal to the middle. I can't see any of them pulling it off.
All of these factors are pushing us towards more polarization, and there is little room for moderates. It's depressing.
Huntsman is starting to reposition calling his rivals out as the extremists they are, but we'll see...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/huntsman-calls-his-rivals-unelectable/I don't understand why he isn't doing better. He really seems like the most rational of them all.
Then again thats not saying much is it?
I don't understand why he isn't doing better. He really seems like the most rational of them all.
There's your problem.
So, he is hampered, but part of the reason he is hampered is to do with his earlier strategies and approaches, and how he played the game early in his presidency?
So they sound like wacko extremists. It will be amusing to watch them try to change their rhetoric in several months when they try to appeal to the middle. I can't see any of them pulling it off.
That's what happened with McCain. I liked McCain, until he started talking nonsense to appeal to the republican right-wing base.
That's what happened with McCain. I liked McCain, until he started talking nonsense to appeal to the republican right-wing base.
Yeah. I kind of liked him until he did his run for president.
I don't understand why he isn't doing better. He really seems like the most rational of them all.
Then again thats not saying much is it?
Him and Romney have similar actual views (I'm not talking about rhetoric) so most of Huntsman's would be supporters go to Romney.
Yes, but I think Huntsman has a lot less baggage in the religion category. He also has more experience with his ambassadorship and a few other things.
Is there any reason to believe all combatants are in the ring yet?
no, got anyone in mind? I can't think of anyone on that side credible enough. IT seems as though they all are waiting to run against Biden or Clinton (whoever) in 2016.
Neat graphs. Is it possible that the nut cluster (yummy) will crush each others chances? It could be quite a circus at the convention. Romney looks strong in that case, but I'd rather see Guiliani or Huntsman. Rudy thinks women have rights, but surrounded by 911 responders he could still get the raw meat vote.
Nate Silver at NYT graphs the race and finds the room for more candidates:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/theres-room-for-more-g-o-p-candidates/
Interesting charts, I wonder how he scored each candidate to get them into their various bubbles and sizes.
I don't know how much does God has to do to get the attention of the politicians? We've had and earthquake we've had a hurricane. He said "Are you going to start listening to Me here? Listen to the the American people."
[YOUTUBE]FMghEPWoFWU[/YOUTUBE]
My comments were not meant to be ones that were taken lightly. What I was saying in a humorous vein is that there are things that are happening that politicians need to pay attention to it. It isn't every day that we have an earthquake in the United States.
Statements like this make me worried and angry. Politicians who act this way are to be viewed skeptically. I try to make sense of this kind of behavior and every likely
motive is bad or worse. Here's the range of motives as I see it:
They're clumsy. This is bad.
This happens, I know. It can range from funny to
embarrassing to shameful. Bachmann's misstep about Elvis' birthday noted later in the clip is an example. Ha ha (note to self, get better researchers). Earlier in the year when she just made up some shit about American history regarding the American Revolution is closer to the
shameful end of the scale.
They're pandering. This is worse.
This is very common, and it's understandable, do this for me, vote, and I'll do this for you, (insert promise here). When it's real, tangible, and good, it is legitimate. When it is fantasy, like this is, it's
scary and wrong.
They're uninformed. This is worse still.
Bachmann's uninformed if she really thinks that there isn't an earthquake in the United States every day. News flash--earthquakes happen all the time. A discussion about the hand of God belongs elsewhere. Being well informed is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good leader. It is important for our leaders to have a good grasp of the facts. Being poorly informed is
inexcusable and makes good leadership impossible.
They believe. This is the worst.
I don't know what's in Bachmann's heart. But this statement is consistent with other similar statements and consistent with some of her actions: belief that she knows what God wants. I have a BIG problem with this kind of conflation of personal belief and public responsibility. A cornerstone of our republic is the separation of church and state, and the prospect of our politicians, *especially* the leader of our country, doing God's work as revealed to them, revolts and terrifies me. Bachmann attempts to control the damage she wrought by dressing it up as merely "clumsy" "humor" (in fact she stumbles over her own explanation), but it's really this worst kind of behavior: belief, belief in the face of facts and logic. God save us.
I don't want my leaders to be clumsy, or pandering or uninformed or worst of all, true believers of false ideas. I deserve better and so do you.
I demand better. And so should you.If the USA weren't so dang important, this would be kind of funny. As it is, it is scary.
why is the latest batch of political women such a joke?
Putting these women (Michele, Sarah and their ilk) up front and suggesting they are the best American women can hope for??? wtf?
where are the smart women?? where are the self-aware women? where are the women who at least passed basic biology???
I've considered this phenom for some time (probably right around when they started throwing Palin in our face.) If they present stupid women, they reinforce the attitude that women are too stupid to 'do' politics. It keeps the fat pasty guys in control. Really, just a microcosm of everything that still goes on in this day and age.
Don't forget, black men were afforded the right to vote 50 years before women. I'm sure there are a lot of conclusions to be drawn from that in reference to the history of women's issues in this country, but there isn't enough time to draw them all.
We've come a long way baby. We've miles to go.
Now get in that kitchen and make me a pie.
There are plenty of wacko male politicians too. I think the fact that one of them was President for two terms reset the switch on that and a new kind of male figure is needed now.
The Sara Palin, Michelle Bachman phenomenon is just a natural extension of the anti-intellectual, faux-egalitarian political ideal of the Right. No nonsense, house-wife/hockey mom, homespun wisdom. None of your airy-fairy, Ivory Tower, college-brainwashed, liberal elitism. Just good old fashioned common sense from God fearing, feisty, but still sexy moms.
There are lots of rather dumb men in politics but we aren't interested in that narrative.
There are lots of rather dumb men in politics but we aren't interested in that narrative.
but they've always been there - since day one. Women on the scene are a newer phenom - so why are they almost exclusively morons?
Where's the Ann Richardsons? (Ann Richards? you know, the ex-Texas gov.)
I guess we've made ourselves so equal that we can be equally stupid, too.
where are the smart women??
They're Democrats or in The Cellar.
It's a counter to the Ann Richards and the Hillary Clintons. Anything to discredit women so that those who are capable never EVER make it to president.
Oh, and read any handful of articles online about male and female idiot politicians.
Male politician user comments:
snappy34: He is just another example of the blah blah of the political blah blah (UG type diatribe)
dando5: snappy, you're ignorant of the facts...blah blah (tw type diatribe)
gershwin: but if we were to cap and tax the infrastructure of the melodical theocracies, we might...blah blah blah
godsquad: he will writhe in hell
modgod: he is righteous and will ascend to the right hand of the lord.
Female politicians user comments:
snappy34: She has some good ideas but her take on the international wayside of the banterifical shows she isn't ready...
dogbutt6: She is a danger to the country...
melvin09: I'd totally hit that!
frankfurter: Put some duct tape over her mouth and bend her over the table!
snappy34: Oh hell YEAH. I'd hit that too! Nice tits.
dogbutt6 did not say that! How dare you put words in [strike]my[/strike] his/her mouth.
On the
state scene...
Before Dauphin County Judge Richard A. Lewis Jr., Perzel pleaded guilty to eight counts of an 82-count indictment branding him as ringleader of a plan to funnel millions of taxpayer dollars into building a high-tech political machine for the state House Republican caucus.
why is the latest batch of political women such a joke?
Putting these women (Michele, Sarah and their ilk) up front and suggesting they are the best American women can hope for??? wtf?
where are the smart women?? where are the self-aware women? where are the women who at least passed basic biology???
Staying the hell away from the Republican party.
Im not even sure this is real...I mean
Really!?! :eek:
An Arizona Republican fundraiser is offering as a prize the same type of gun used in the attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. On August 26 the Pima County Republican Party sent out its regular online newsletter, e-Tracks . It contained your standard newsletterisms - an intro from the chairman, a description of local candidates, a calendar of upcoming events, and so on. But this particular issue also featured an eye-catching giveaway to raise money for GOTV (Get Out the Vote) efforts.
Got to page 3 of the
[COLOR="Red"]newsletter[/COLOR].
Source : Huffington PostThough the letter looks legitimate, I didn't see any mention of Giffords in the message. Regardless if it is or isn't the kind of gun that was used to attack Giffords, it seems like that section of the newsletter is in keeping with the rest of the letter and the rest of the GOP mindset. I did find two things unusual about it.
1 -- They're only selling 125 tickets at 10 dollars a ticket. Why? I reckon the gun costs several hundred dollars, why limit the ticket sales?
2 -- I have some questions about the legality of offering a gun as a prize in a raffle like this. Really? I thought the transfer of guns was regulated more strictly. It seems there must be more to this aspect of the story.
Pima County is her district. The total lack of sensitivity and judgement is in question here. She was shot with the same type of gun only 7 months ago.
"Owned by a little old lady from Pasadena who only shot people in the head on Sunday."
"Owned by a little old lady from Pasadena who only shot hobos in the head on Sunday."
*blinks*
why is the latest batch of political women such a joke?
Putting these women (Michele, Sarah and their ilk) up front and suggesting they are the best American women can hope for??? wtf?
where are the smart women?? where are the self-aware women? where are the women who at least passed basic biology???
Her name is Hillary.
Hillary is capable. Condy Rice was capable too, although I strongly dislike her politics.
Only 125 tickets, sound like a good deal to me.
And there is your answer. It appeals to the rank and file.
That is a pretty short buy in for a really good handgun. Can't argue with that!
"Rank and File", :lol: what tool....
Talk english, it aren't that hard.
Responding to glatt. Figure it out.
What tool...
think it out.
Been there, done it. You figure it out.
you're calling glatt a tool? that's my guess. why is he a tool for pointing out the obvious that a fundraising effort in a gop newsletter will appeal to the people that receive the newsletter? Seriously?
Ok, skip the english, talk sense, if you can. Why does such a statement make him a tool?
you're calling glatt a tool? that's my guess. why is he a tool for pointing out the obvious that a fundraising effort in a gop newsletter will appeal to the people that receive the newsletter? Seriously?
Ok, skip the english, talk sense, if you can. Why does such a statement make him a tool?
No BigV, YOU need to prove why glatt is not a tool. Otherwise, if you can't prove he's not, then he is.
you're calling glatt a tool?
Nope.
I'm not your only or last friend, mercy. I am civil to you and I strain to understand and accept your points of view. But you're beyond me. If you care to clarify your point of view, have at it. I might get it, I might not.
But I'll tell you this, you might not be stupid, but you post stupid a lot of the time.
Trying to avoid the ad hominems for a minute, is it legal to offer a gun as a raffle prize? What if the winner is mentally ill or a convicted felon or some such?
ETA: you may now resume your scheduled personal abuse. You fuckers.
Generally speaking, it would be the convicted felon's responsibility not to have (get caught with) a gun. And there are many states that do not have laws against the mentally ill having a gun. There is an age limit in most places, but there is also a gambling age limit preventing them from participating in raffles. Depending on where they are, the winner may or may not have to go through some standard waiting period before actually retrieving his new weapon from the retailer.
They're Democrats or in The Cellar.
I cite Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) as a counterexample. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as an example of one who seems... rather off. Past the Sell-By date.
Waters is the kind of gal the TEA Partiers vote against. Though her constituency... deserves her. Pelosi, being of the Great Big Government spend-the-money-you-don't-have persuasion -- gotta keep the bread and circuses going regardless -- is another, being fiscally irresponsible in the largest humanly possible way.
Voting oneself the treasury isn't much good if you're inflating the currency. This is one reason I think Democrats are such
dopes. being fiscally irresponsible in the largest humanly possible way.
Voting oneself the treasury isn't much good if you're inflating the currency.
Dude - seriously? The R's have done more of both than the D's.
Dude, it's kind of hard to beat obligating to a 14 trillion dollar debt. This is astronomically irresponsible.
Not being thrilled with the Republicans' degree of fiscal discipline either is why I often vote Libertarian instead of anything from the Big Two.
But the Democrats -- they've taken it to an absurd scale. Unsustainable. And uncaring also.
ok. Define what makes up that debt.
Have you considered the amount for the wars which were not accounted for under the last administration? Y/N only please.
How much was that?
[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Silver"]pssssst! Classic! Arguing with UG is like arguing with the Borg. You WILL be assimilated. :eek:[/COLOR][/SIZE]
He's harmless. Didja notice the Y/N part.. ")
So was UG advocating not honoring our debt, while the world economy teeters? Ron Paul used to talk about how a transition to a less active/intrusive government had to be incremental to avoid unnecessary suffering and trauma. As far as labels go, I wouldn't call any of these Republicans, accept for Paul, libertarian at least not in the social realm.
The press seems to be giving Huntsman the Ron Paul treatment, maybe because he is close enough to center to be electable?
No BigV, YOU need to prove why glatt is not a tool. Otherwise, if you can't prove he's not, then he is.
Correct. Otherwise you are a tool! :lol2:
file = tool? Or am I reading too much into it?
Trying to avoid the ad hominems for a minute, is it legal to offer a gun as a raffle prize? What if the winner is mentally ill or a convicted felon or some such?
ETA: you may now resume your scheduled personal abuse. You fuckers.
Generally speaking, it would be the convicted felon's responsibility not to have (get caught with) a gun. And there are many states that do not have laws against the mentally ill having a gun. There is an age limit in most places, but there is also a gambling age limit preventing them from participating in raffles. Depending on where they are, the winner may or may not have to go through some standard waiting period before actually retrieving his new weapon from the retailer.
In Vermont, 10 minutes drive away, a Vermont resident can walk into a gun shop and buy a handgun with only a brief phone call by the dealer to the ATF. In New York state there is an expensive and lengthy permit process that can cost a few hundred dollars and take up to 15 months.
It depends on the state and as CF points out it probably has as much or more to do with the laws governing lottery and prizes. That may have something to do with the 125 ticket limit.
[ stares in wonder ]
After the port Aurthur massacre in 1996, we made a law that crazy people aren't allowed to have guns.
I guess over there that would disarm half the population. ;) ;) ;)
Scooping mercy's "O ba mi na tion" folderol and LL's thread where he has no dog... I give you Rick Perry's character assassination of President Obama, "Lazy Americans".
[YOUTUBE]lgR6AGfjwOs[/YOUTUBE]
Incidentally, it's not true, but it's the best kind of lie, big, short, right out there in front, making people deny it. The fact is, I think it shows Rick Perry to be either incapable of holding a whole paragraph of thought in his head (stupid) or a liar himself, putting words in the President's mouth "that what is wrong with America is that the President thinks Americans are lazy?" He may be both.
Rick Perry, you're pathetic.
You can see that Perry is very proud of himself in this ad... No Ooooops !
What easier way can someone make a crowd angry with their opponent
than by telling them the other guy said something nasty about them.
Even if the opponent didn't say it, it puts him/her on the defensive,
and heats up the scene.
Now, can we tell Mr Not-Mitt Perry that Romney said it first -
last Tuesday ?
IIRC, Rush beat them both by almost, if not more than a year.
Andrew Belonsky
November 17, 2011
Rick Perry has proven himself to be a totally terrible debater.
Despite all resulting the bad press and hemorrhaging public support,
the presidential candidate drew attention to his foible by challenging
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a figure reviled in Republican circles,
to a one-on-one face-off.
“I am in Washington Monday and would love to engage you in a public debate
about my Overhaul Washington plan versus the congressional status quo,”
Perry wrote to Pelosi in an intentionally leaked letter obtained by GOP 12′s Christian Heinze.
Taking pity on Perry, though, Pelosi cordially declined his invitation.
“Re: Gov. Perry –
Monday I’ll be in Portland.
Later visiting labs in CA. That’s 2.
I can’t remember the 3rd thing,”
<snip>
My 82 year-old father has been, up until 2004, a life-long straight across-the-board Republican.
I asked him yesterday if he'd ever seen anything as insane as the current Republican Presidential line up. He said, "No."
He always referred to "W" as King George.
He's a funny guy.
:D
"I can’t remember the 3rd thing,” - Pelosi
:lol: that's a zing.
Perry's voice, his smarm, his attitude...he's like a political robotoid, and I wouldn't buy a used car from him.
"I can’t remember the 3rd thing,” - Pelosi
that's a zing.
Zingiful! :lol:
You can see that Perry is very proud of himself in this ad... No Ooooops !
What easier way can someone make a crowd angry with their opponent
than by telling them the other guy said something nasty about them.
Even if the opponent didn't say it, it puts him/her on the defensive,
and heats up the scene.
Now, can we tell Mr Not-Mitt Perry that Romney said it first - last Tuesday ?
Yep.
It's just a smear. Perry's is more offensive I believe because of two things. One, he's made a television commercial about it. The commercial is likely to have a far wider reach than a story like the one linked to. And television's very medium can deliver a short, emotional message with more impact than a paper news story. And then there's the content of each message. Perry included just the red meat "Americans are lazy" and none of the exculpatory content. Who needs content anyhow.
Both messages are misleading, however, they are likely to be believed by those who have already made up their mind about President Obama's character and intent on other similar ideas: he's a socialist, he wants to destroy the economy, he hates business, he hates America. It's all bullshit, and anyone who gives those ideas any credibility beyond a flat "No." is a fool.
Yep.
It's just a smear.
Of course it is. The other thing you forgot was that he is pandering to the base now more than ever in an attempt to try and salvage his campaign.
they are likely to be believed by those who have already made up their mind about President Obama~snip~
It's all bullshit, and anyone who gives those ideas any credibility beyond a flat "No." is a fool.
..and again has already made up their mind - hence what's the point? Preaching to the choir comes to mind.
<snip>
..and again has already made up their mind - hence what's the point? Preaching to the choir comes to mind.
The ad is now being played over and over
for free in places like The Cellar
So? Blame V for that ;)
Again the only ones who are going to respond positively to it have already made up their minds.
So? Blame V for that ;)
Again the only ones who are going to respond positively to it have already made up their minds.
"Blame V" ? No, it's been fun.
"only ones..." Ummmm. That's what advertising is all about...
reaching the "leaning towards " and "undecided"
And/or weakening the"leaning away from"
"Blame V" ? No, it's been fun.
See the smilie - I was kidding.
No harm no foul.
Herman Cain has requested Secret Service Protection.
Reporters are concerned the Service will block their access to Cain.
One reporter said: "Now Cain will be surrounded by a phalanx of body guards"
Can you ever be surrounded by a phalanx of anything ?
.
LL has now returned to the grammar-nazi's barracks.
Of course you can be surrounded by a phalanx of defenders, such as Secret Service members. It just means a rectangular formation of soldiers.
...he's a socialist, he wants to destroy the economy, he hates business, he hates America.
He hates these cans. Stay away from the cans.
You watch a lot of movies, don't you, you jerk, you?
Romney's campaign has a major hurdle to overcome... resistance in
some parts of the religious community.
The meeting below may set the tone for all the "not-Romney"
talking-points between now and the Iowa caucuses, and
Iowa may become the bellwether for the entire GOP campaign
This source obviously has a point of view...
This is what theocracy looks like
Steve Bogira
Nov 18, 2011
The Republican candidates for president will meet in a megachurch in Iowa Saturday
to discuss key issues in the campaign, such as which one of them most opposes gay marriage.
The “Thanksgiving Family Forum” is being hosted by sponsors
who don’t believe in separation of church and debate.
The event, at the First Federated Church in Des Moines,
will be moderated by pollster and Fox News regular Frank Luntz.
He told the Des Moines Register he may ask the candidates, for instance,
“What do the words ‘so help me God’ mean to you?”
As host, Luntz will home in on the nation’s major concern,
which, according to the Family Leader, is not the economy or foreign affairs
but the need for faithful monogamy between God-fearing heterosexuals.
On the steps of the Iowa capitol in July, Vander Plaats unveiled the Family Leader’s “Marriage Vow,”
which included a “Candidate Vow” that candidates would have to sign
if they wanted to be considered for the Family Leader’s blessing.
Given the bigoted views the Family Leader expressed this summer,
a better question for the candidates might be,
“Why aren’t you sitting this event out?”
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are doing just that.
But the rest of the squad—
Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum
will be fighting like the devil to win over the faithful.
Tickets to the forum are $40.
The church holds 3,400, and proceeds benefit the Family Leader.
The Republican candidates help the Family Leader raise money through this event,
the Family Leader helps righteous Republicans get elected
—it’s all one big happy straight family.
Scooping mercy's "O ba mi na tion" folderol and LL's thread where he has no dog... I give you Rick Perry's character assassination of President Obama, "Lazy Americans".
[YOUTUBE]lgR6AGfjwOs[/YOUTUBE]
Great Ad. I hope it helps defeat Obama. Obama has plenty of lies out there to match the contenders BS. Whatever works.
What works must be preceded by an end to the internecine slaughter to which we subject our fellow citizens. You want a stop to lies, stop lying. You want a more civil exchange of ideas, mutual respect, the best for the country? Start showing those qualities to those around you.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The only thing great about that ad is that it shows very clearly the desperation of the Perry campaign, or their low opinion of the voters by imagining anyone would believe such crap. It is insulting.
What works must be preceded by an end to the internecine slaughter to which we subject our fellow citizens. You want a stop to lies, stop lying. You want a more civil exchange of ideas, mutual respect, the best for the country? Start showing those qualities to those around you.
Don't expect that from either party, it is not going to happen.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Great quote.
The only thing great about that ad is that it shows very clearly the desperation of the Perry campaign, or their low opinion of the voters by imagining anyone would believe such crap. It is insulting.
I thought it was not only clever but funny. It shows that both sides can use the sound bite to their advantage. Nothing has changed in that respect. Nothing desperate about it, more like politics as usual. And if you don't think it already has gained traction you are deluding yourself, you must think the average voter is smart.
What is your opinion of the young people in your life I wonder? Do you expect them to be dumb, stupid? Or do you give them a chance to live up to your high expectations? And what about the other adults around you? What would you want them to conclude from your words and actions? Would you want to be surrounded by others who behave, act and think like you do?
Are you walking the talk? Are you treating others as though they're smart? Are you being clever by taking soundbites out of context in a plain attempt to deceive?
This is the sword I spoke of. If this is what you reap, this is what you will sow. I've used the word "you" very freely here, and I promise you I consider these same questions regarding my own behavior.
I don't want mudslinging like this. I think it has NO positive effect on our political process, regardless of who's the target. I want a better process, I work toward a better process, and I urge those around me to believe in and strive for a better political process. This ad and countless others like it are the OPPOSITE of what I am working for.
What is your opinion of the young people in your life I wonder? Do you expect them to be dumb, stupid? Or do you give them a chance to live up to your high expectations? And what about the other adults around you? What would you want them to conclude from your words and actions? Would you want to be surrounded by others who behave, act and think like you do?
Are you walking the talk? Are you treating others as though they're smart? Are you being clever by taking soundbites out of context in a plain attempt to deceive?
This is the sword I spoke of. If this is what you reap, this is what you will sow. I've used the word "you" very freely here, and I promise you I consider these same questions regarding my own behavior.
Great goals.
I don't want mudslinging like this. I think it has NO positive effect on our political process, regardless of who's the target. I want a better process, I work toward a better process, and I urge those around me to believe in and strive for a better political process. This ad and countless others like it are the OPPOSITE of what I am working for.
This is the new norm. I don't see it going away anytime soon.
Additional Edit: Maybe our thinking is shaped by the people we encounter everyday. I don't know what your job is, maybe you can enlighten us, in very general terms. I am in Healthcare, I see a wide swath of the public every day. I have very little hope of an informed electorate participating in any vote, based on my day to day experiences in dealing with the general public. Maybe that is where we differ so much. I am very cynical.
What works must be preceded by an end to the internecine slaughter to which we subject our fellow citizens. You want a stop to lies, stop lying. You want a more civil exchange of ideas, mutual respect, the best for the country? Start showing those qualities to those around you.
Well said. Applying the Golden Rule to politics... coming to a campaign near you?
You mean the one about whoever has the gold makes the rules?
I'm pretty sure that's the operative one at this time, although you could argue that, the I've got the pistol so I'll keep the pesos rule is in play as well. Its a feedback loop, I suppose.
Romney's campaign has a major hurdle to overcome... resistance in
some parts of the religious community.
The meeting below may set the tone for all the "not-Romney"
talking-points between now and the Iowa caucuses, and
Iowa may become the bellwether for the entire GOP campaign
Politico
ALEXANDER BURNS
11/22/11
Family Leader writes off Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Ron Paul
The Family Leader — Iowa activist Bob Vander Plaats's social conservative advocacy group —
says that it has cut its list of possible 2012 endorsees to four names:
Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
That means the group has eliminated Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Ron Paul from consideration,
as well as Jon Huntsman, who is not competing in Iowa.
Both Cain and Paul participated in the Family Leader's candidate forum last weekend.
[QUOTE]Each individual of the seven member voting Board of Directors expressed
many positives of Representative Ron Paul and businessman Herman Cain.
The stumbling block for the board regarding Representative Paul dealt primarily
with “States’ Rights” as it pertains to the sanctity of human life and God’s design for marriage.
Regarding Mr. Cain, the board cited a narrative of questions versus clarity on the key issues
of life, marriage, foreign policy, and presidential readiness.
The board did not give consideration to Governor Romney.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think Romney's Mormon faith makes him a better candidate for President. But I also don't consider it a disqualifying factor. I think it is clear that Romney was not given consideration by the board based on his faith.
I wonder what it would be like, or what I would be like if I lived in a world which was as finite and well defined as the one where these folks appear to live. How do they handle the inevitable ambiguities and conflicts that arise in life? Questions that don't have a certain answer in "the book". I think in some ways it must be very comforting to know that it's all taken care of. That there are no unanswered questions. I don't think I would be comfortable in such an environment though. I have too little faith, or faith that is too weak. I have a strong need to understand "why" and "how". Sometimes I realize that there are things I don't know, and I then try to find someone or some source that is credible and that I trust. I increase my reliance on those sources. In the past some of those sources were religious figures, scholars, pastors, family leaders. But I was unable to reconcile the differences between the normal humanity of these people, their faults, their striving, their failures, their misfortunes with the story I was getting from the texts, and with my own experience.
I've since increased my reliance on my own judgement, and reduced the amount of literal credibility I assign to people whose actions are like those of the board described above.
I've since increased my reliance on my own judgement, and reduced the amount of literal credibility I assign to people whose actions are like those of the board described above.
I can't agree more. The more I hear from people who think they are above the average person in insight the less I respect their opinion. The more they try to push their ideas of understanding the less I respect their opinion. So far it has not failed me....
I can't agree more. The more I hear from people who think they are above the average person in insight the less I respect their opinion. The more they try to push their ideas of understanding the less I respect their opinion. So far it has not failed me....
Wow.
Couldn't get any more ironic if you tried.
The ironic pot calling the kettle black.
Hey, check that out: Sam just thunk a worthwhile thought. Even if he burns his thumb on the irony, he thunk one.
So ironic it is haemochromotosic.
UG in order to be accurate, you'd have to realize that Sam is a she not a he.
Classic, shhhhhhh! You'll ruin all the fun!;)
I can't agree more. The more I hear from people who think they are above the average person in insight the less I respect their opinion. The more they try to push their ideas of understanding the less I respect their opinion. So far it has not failed me....
The real question is, does this apply to UG?
The real question is, does this apply to UG?
It applies to everyone.
Wow.
Please expound on your exclamation and surprise.
I really don't think you want Griff to do that. He's probably to polite to, anyhow. :rolleyes:
I really don't think you want Griff to do that. He's probably to polite to, anyhow. :rolleyes:
Ummmm, thanks for butting in, but no, I really want him to explain himself. Or maybe you want to be his surrogate? Where is the "hate"?
No, I'm really bad at being a surrogate. What hate? I often feel really annoyed by you, especially on this forum, but I don't hate you. I just consider you a poor, misguided, boy. :p:
No, I'm really bad at being a surrogate. What hate? I often feel really annoyed by you, especially on this forum, but I don't hate you. I just consider you a poor, misguided, boy. :p:
Boy?!?!?! Haaaaaaaaaaaa! :lol: Thanks! You are the bomb Old Lady!
mercy, et al:
Those who have lost credibility with me are those who are hypocritical. They are not found only in religious circles, but political ones, social ones, legal ones, technical ones, etc. I have pointed out before that people with strong, inflexible fundamentalist attitudes are the ones most likely to suffer this kind of loss of stature with me. Religious fundamentalists, strict constitutionalists, zero-tolerance advocates, "true believers" in some one true way, these people are expert only in deluding themselves about the real world. It is these people in whom I place little trust.
In other 2012 Republican news:
Cain has suspended his campaign.
Is this a good thing though? Now we won't have Cain to kick around anymore. I mean, who else will we mock
for quoting ASH KETCHUM of POKEMON fame?
Srsly?
Herman Cain Exits Race With Admission That He Did Quote Pokémon That One Time
by Frances Martel | 4:08 pm, December 3rd, 2011
Last summer, during one of the several dozen or so Republican debates since the campaign season began, Herman Cain came “under fire” for using a very suspicious poem in his closing statement– one that happened to quote the theme song to Pokémon: The Movie 2000, but that he attributed to “a poet.” And this was the way his campaign ended today, not with a bang, but with a “pika,” finally admitting, “I think these words came from the Pokémon movie.”
SERIOUSLY?Stunning development! NPR said the words Ron Paul today. The up-tick in Newt's numbers must have scared them.
That's it. Next thing you know, cats and dogs will be living together! What the HELL is going on here?!?!
stop scaring me.
What? no parting shots at Cain for quoting Donna Summer from the Pokemon 2000 Movie?
Scroll on CNN this am:
"Cain is keeping his options open for a media gig"
smh
Fox News show at 9. </SNL>
The Obama Administration couldn't relish the thought of a fight against another black conservative in the race.
They'd probably be more afraid of someone competent, though.
Cain has suspended his campaign.
Yes,
suspended, not
ended, this way he can keep collecting federal matching funds for another year.
Just caught 3 minutes of the Republican debate. What a dogfight. Everyone trying to one-up each other.
Candidate 1: I will kill Obama care
Candidate 2: I will kill Obama care and shred the pieces.
Candidate 3: I will travel back in time to insure that there never was an Obama care.
Candidate 1: Candidate 3 is lying. There's no such thing as time travel.
Candidate 3: You're believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth with Jesus and now you're worried about science?
rich, very rich, rich.
***
In other news,
Romney has again emphasized how different he is from the rest of us financial mortals. We've heard how he doesn't track NASCAR, but he does have friends who own teams, and other foot-in-mouth comments like this. In a casual moment
during a recent interview, he was asked about the future of Peyton Manning. Now, he's not a die hard football fan, but (wait for it, waaaaait for it.....) he has, yes, friends who own football teams. L O L.
And then came the Peyton Manning question. "I know you want him somewhere away from New England. Where do you think he ought to go?" Finebaum asked about the star quarterback.
"I don't want him in our neck of the woods, let's put it that way. I don't want him to go to Miami or the Jets," Romney said, laughing, referring to two teams that play the New England Patriots in the American Football Conference's Eastern Division. "I got a lot of good friends -- the owners of the Miami Dolphins and New York Jets -- both owners are friends of mine, but let's keep away from New England so that Tom Brady has a better shot of picking up a championship for us."
Romney didn't mention that Jets owner Woody Johnson is one of his national finance co-chairmen. A very good friend indeed.
The $10,000 bet, the two Cadillacs, the $374,000 in speaking fees that Romney described as "not very much," the NASCAR team owners and now the football team owners -- it is getting hard to keep track of all the times Romney doesn't notice he is casually saying things that are completely outside the experience of regular people.
I predicted this problem wouldn't stop. But it's still amazing that it continues.
Abbreviated headline on CNN: Romney takes Ill., looks to Louisiana.
1) please do, Mittens. Please do take ill. Something that will cost you billions to fix and wipe out all your assets. I hope you have good insurance. ;)
2) can't wait to see Everyman Mitt trying to act all Cajun. Good luck down there, buddy. I'd stay far away from 'the bayou' if I were you. :lol:
Oh, some of his best friends are bayou owners.
I watched both Mitt and Rick with there apres-election conflabs,
and Mitt was by far the more entertaining, and actually had a few good jokes.
I felt both of the men were realizing that with Romney taking
both the popular vote AND the delegates, the nomination was pretty much settled.
Romney took on Obama, Santorum donned on the cloth.
So Romney can count on your vote, then?
Do you get the feeling that Romney's karma is just not quite right ?
Yesterday, his own campaign aide sets off a media storm with a comment about Etch-A-Sketch.
The Dems AND the Reps jumped all over it.... flip flopping Romney
But Mitt thought he had some good news too, when
Jeb Bush called to say he was going to endorse Romney,
and Jeb suggested that Marco Rubio be chosen as Romney's VP
... to garner the Hispanic vote.
"Great !", thinks Mitt.
Now today, it's being reported that Marco Rubio sponsored
the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, and Governor Jeb signed it.
With friends like that, Mitt is justified in having no sense of humor.
*shrugs*
That's what happens when the debbil is your playmate, on the debbil's playground.
Isn't it time for a merge, like on Survivor?
I think this might end his campaign. really.
now he CAN'T pivot back to the center. hes stuck hard right and the hard right doesnt trust him either.
Now today, it's being reported that Marco Rubio sponsored
the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, and Governor Jeb signed it.
What is your issue with the stand your ground provision?
"He's coming right for us!"
blam blam blam
"Self defense!"
I don't know where else to put this.
This was 1978. Comedy from that year, applicable to now. ;)
[YOUTUBE]H3t-DuN8t6U[/YOUTUBE]
SNL - what goes around comes back around.
I do think Romney's kind of cursed. But the remark by his campaign was just plain dumb, flat dumb.
I find it troubling and unfortunate that the current political environment considers a politician, or even worse, an elected leader who changes their mind unfashionable. Things change. Circumstances change, priorities change, resources change. Why not decisions? It is utter hubris to imagine that the ideas a person has are the best, only, and last ideas they'll have. FFS, I don't want my leaders walking around in the world with that attitude, so I don't hold them to that kind of insane standard (see Grover Norquist's tax pledge). And though it pains me greatly to say, those people for whom such inflexibility is a virtue are likely to get what they ask for and deserve. God help us all.
For those who missed it...
comments from a top Romney adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said his campaign will "hit a reset button" to take on Obama in the fall if Romney wins the GOP nomination. He added, "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."
Well, yeah, we all know that, but you're not supposed to say it
out loud!!!
Oh, and Capitalism, you so funny:
Etch A Sketch stock triples after Romney campaign’s comment
"The thinly traded toymaker more than tripled to $12.50 on one transaction of 500 shares at 10:41 a.m. in New York on the over-the-counter market. It was the biggest intra-day move for the shares since at least 1980, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."
Things change. Circumstances change, priorities change, resources change. Why not decisions? It is utter hubris to imagine that the ideas a person has are the best, only, and last ideas they'll have.
McCain learned that the hard way. Once he won the nomination, Steve Schmidt (from Cheney's office) took over his campaign. Schmidt then erased McCain's list of possible VP candidate. And put Palin on that list. We all know what happened next.
Things change. Especially when your campaign won due support from moderates. And then a deal with the devil must be made to get party support.
Romney is in the same precarious position. The party has too many wacko extremists. He will have to make a deal. I believe Steve Schmidt is still available.
He works for MSNBC now. I dunno if that means he's available or not.. or tainted forever.