Generally not a good idea to take on Gingrich.
Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it. Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution. So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight. Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot. We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner. It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.
Again, this is not a matter of right or left. It's a matter of right or wrong.
Quote from: Ed W on November 13, 2011, 04:48:40 PM
Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it. Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution. So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight. Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot. We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner. It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.
Again, this is not a matter of right or left. It's a matter of right or wrong.
Where would you draw the line? Would you have put all the Japanese pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor on trial in US Civil courts if you could get them? How about the Germans during WWII? It appears from what Newt said that it was not Prez Obama alone but a panel or group of some sort that determined that this "American citizen" was an enemy combatant. Were you in the military? It is possible that a service person could be sentenced to death at a Court Martial. No jury there. As I remember it, when I (was forced to, because of the draft) joined the US Navy, I agreed to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in place of the Constitutional rights of civilians. Sentencing a person to death without a full civilian jury trial is NOT without precedent.
Quote from: Ed W on November 13, 2011, 04:48:40 PM
Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it. Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution. So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight. Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot. We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner. It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.
Again, this is not a matter of right or left. It's a matter of right or wrong.
My agreement with Newt on this was kinda difficult since I am anti-death penalty. However, war is war. That's what that American traitor declared on us making him, in my opinion, an enemy soldier and fair target. As for your Reid comparison, I considered him a POW. Not all enemy soldiers are killed. Some are taken prisoner.
Wow. Authoritarian much?
So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you? If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too? So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic?
We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries.
Quote from: Ed W on November 13, 2011, 08:59:13 PM
Wow. Authoritarian much?
So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you? If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too? So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic?
We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries.
Wow! A bit too idealistic? Think every person who ever fought against the USA deserves a civilian trial by jury? Again, where do you draw the line? It's not a rhetorical question.
Quote from: Ed W on November 13, 2011, 08:59:13 PM
Wow. Authoritarian much?
So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you? If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too? So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic?
We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries.
Another thought.... What is a jury other than an committee? How many people do you require to be on the committee?
Quote from: Ed W on November 13, 2011, 08:59:13 PM
Wow. Authoritarian much?
So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you? If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too? So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic?
We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries.
President Obama gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden as well as anyone else in the residence with him. Did that bother you?
Quote from: guido911 on November 13, 2011, 06:13:56 PM
My agreement with Newt on this was kinda difficult since I am anti-death penalty. However, war is war. That's what that American traitor declared on us making him, in my opinion, an enemy soldier and fair target. As for your Reid comparison, I considered him a POW. Not all enemy soldiers are killed. Some are taken prisoner.
The big fallacy here is what Newt and the rest of the "you-know-who" are trying to convince the country of is that there IS such a thing as an enemy combatant, and that somehow the concept makes legitimate the killing of an American citizen outside of the legal system. There is not legal entity in our legal system, or the international codes that we subscribe to in treaties. It is an artificial declaration by the Bush administration that does not in fact exist. (Same guys that tried to convince you that torture was legal...which it is not.)
Quote from: Ed W on November 13, 2011, 04:48:40 PM
Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it. Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution. So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight. Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot. We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner. It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.
Again, this is not a matter of right or left. It's a matter of right or wrong.
Newt is wrong, but not for the reason you advance. (And "guilty under review"?? After the fact.)
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention covers that type of thing regarding someone in custody, which shoe bomber was. And it applies to anyone taken in custody. The only question is the determination by a tribunal of whether the person would fall into POW status (giving military justice procedures), or civilian status (giving court procedures).
By definition, no one is allowed to be outside of one of those two categories.
Here is Article 3 - keeping in mind this refers to persons in custody (not the above situation). C and D are interesting. Can you spell "Gitmo"?
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Thank you for posting that. You are exactly correct. According to the Geneva Conventions, regardless of whether you are a lawful or unlawful combatant, you are 1) guaranteed a hearing to determine your status and 2) either are guaranteed a military tribunal or a trial under the domestic law of the land. The enemy combatant status was created by the Bush Administration to keep certain (all?) detainees completely outside the scope of the law.
The irony is that the Fourth Geneva Convention -- in which international POW law is established -- was specifically negotiated and put into practice by the United States, which at that point (1949), was the pre-eminent world power (the Cold War had yet to really ramp up). So, for all intents and purposes, we built these international laws, and then 50 years later decided to circumvent them entirely.
And Obama's order for the Bin Laden raid was capture or kill. Not that anyone thought that Bin Laden would be taken alive but at least the Seals' orders allowed for that possibility. It wasn't (at least on paper) a hit squad.
The first step to getting POW rights under any law or convention is to become a prisoner, the "P" in POW.
When they are still out on the loose, all bets are off - they are fair game. Bin Laden, the guy targeted a few weeks ago. Both in cross-hairs. The shoe bomber was taken into custody and had an immediate status change - he is subject to Article 3. THEN the determination is made whether POW or civilian courts apply. But a final determination must be made before final disposition of the case can be done.
Gitmo - undefined...still. But until their status is determined by some legal tribunal or other legal method, they are still subject to Article 3. And that is just another point where the Bush administration failed so miserably.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 14, 2011, 02:08:45 PM
The first step to getting POW rights under any law or convention is to become a prisoner, the "P" in POW.
Yep. Because there's a chance the enemy may become KIA.
http://www.hark.com/clips/ckpsqgxgxq-excuse-me-sir-seeing-as-how-the-vp-is-such-a-vip-shouldnt-we-keep-the-pc-on-the-qt-because-if-it-leaks-to-the-vc-you-could-end-up-an-mia-and-then-wed-all-be-put-on-kp
Quote from: Conan71 on November 14, 2011, 12:40:07 PM
President Obama gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden as well as anyone else in the residence with him. Did that bother you?
Was Bin Laden an American citizen?
Yet our president ordered the death of a citizen, attacking him with a Predator drone strike. Sure, he was likely an enemy of the US, but American citizens still retain their legal rights. This is no different from taking him out on the White House lawn and putting a bullet in his head.
Quote from: Ed W on November 14, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
Was Bin Laden an American citizen?
Yet our president ordered the death of a citizen, attacking him with a Predator drone strike. Sure, he was likely an enemy of the US, but American citizens still retain their legal rights. This is no different from taking him out on the White House lawn and putting a bullet in his head.
He was engaged in war activities against us. He was chased down and eliminated. If he wanted to avail himself of those rights - and he easily could have any time up to the point he was disassembled - all he had to do was call an embassy and ask to come in and visit.
Brought it on himself.
Quote from: Ed W on November 14, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
Was Bin Laden an American citizen?
Yet our president ordered the death of a citizen, attacking him with a Predator drone strike. Sure, he was likely an enemy of the US, but American citizens still retain their legal rights. This is no different from taking him out on the White House lawn and putting a bullet in his head.
Come on Ed. You want to send the police into Yemen risking their lives to arrest that clown? Funny how I'm with Obama and you are with Ron Paul on this one...
Newt getting after Obama and his crutch.
Newt's a clown.....these things I know
Newt quotes...
"She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife."
-Newt Gingrich, talking about his first wife after divorcing her.
"This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger.... It's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."
- Newt Gingrich, at a book talk in Huntington, NY, April 2008, saying that Republicans should allow terrorist attacks on American soil to remind us of the dangers in the world.
"I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words."
-Newt Gingrich, advocating for hateful rhetoric and smearing opponents with lies.
"If the Soviet empire still existed, I'd be terrified. The fact is, we can afford a fairly ignorant presidency now."
-Newt Gingrich, saying that it's okay for the President to be ignorant.
"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid...These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school."
-Newt Gingrich, advocating for an end to child labor laws so businesses can fire union workers and replace them with cheap labor.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 27, 2011, 11:21:07 AM
Newt quotes...
"She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife."
-Newt Gingrich, talking about his first wife after divorcing her.
"This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger.... It's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."
- Newt Gingrich, at a book talk in Huntington, NY, April 2008, saying that Republicans should allow terrorist attacks on American soil to remind us of the dangers in the world.
"I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words."
-Newt Gingrich, advocating for hateful rhetoric and smearing opponents with lies.
"If the Soviet empire still existed, I'd be terrified. The fact is, we can afford a fairly ignorant presidency now."
-Newt Gingrich, saying that it's okay for the President to be ignorant.
"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid...These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school."
-Newt Gingrich, advocating for an end to child labor laws so businesses can fire union workers and replace them with cheap labor.
Do you have the rest of the transcript supporting the conclusions in the smaller type?
Would it matter to a Gingrich enabler, supporter?
The first quote...
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-25/opinion/op-12904_1_family-values
The second quote...
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/gingrich-who-once-suggested-govt-allow-attacks-amps-up-terrorism-fears-with-new-propaganda-film
The third quote...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/opinion/17blow.html
The fourth quote...
http://americanhistoryquotes.com/gingrich_newt.htm
The fifth quote...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45371586/ns/local_news-detroit_mi/t/gingrich-laws-preventing-child-labor-are-truly-stupid/
Quote from: AquaMan on November 27, 2011, 11:55:37 AM
Would it matter to a Gingrich enabler, supporter?
Probably not much more than out of context, incomplete quotes from Obama would to an Obama
enabler supporter.
For example:
Quote
"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid...These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school."
-Newt Gingrich, advocating for an end to child labor laws so businesses can fire union workers and replace them with cheap labor.
You and I have different opinions about the value of belonging to a Union so I'll leave that one alone. Neither of us wants kids working in sweat shops 60 hours a week. What would be wrong with offering the opportunity to a Jr High kid to push a broom a few hours a week to earn some spending money? I guess you would rather have them (continue to) sell drugs to their friends. I haven't kept up with the laws on child labor since I don't have any kids. When I was a teen, I had to get a work permit to join the local volunteer fire company at age 16. That's OK, there was some potential danger involved although volunteers under age 18 were not allowed to enter a burning building. We could work salvage, pull fire hoses etc. I would see no problem in allowing, not requiring, teenagers at 14 or 15 to perform janitorial duties such as floor sweeping, window washing (not requiring ladders etc).
Quote"This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger.... It's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."
- Newt Gingrich, at a book talk in Huntington, NY, April 2008, saying that Republicans should allow terrorist attacks on American soil to remind us of the dangers in the world.
I guess there is no difference between presenting a hypothetical example and actually advocating it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 27, 2011, 12:07:59 PM
The first quote...
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-25/opinion/op-12904_1_family-values
The second quote...
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/gingrich-who-once-suggested-govt-allow-attacks-amps-up-terrorism-fears-with-new-propaganda-film
The third quote...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/opinion/17blow.html
The fourth quote...
http://americanhistoryquotes.com/gingrich_newt.htm
The fifth quote...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45371586/ns/local_news-detroit_mi/t/gingrich-laws-preventing-child-labor-are-truly-stupid/
I was referring to a transcript including more of what Newt said, not just the cherry picked quote.
As for the age of janitorial work, I chose 14 or 15 above just to get under the work permit law as I remembered it. I had friends with paper routes. I don't remember the exact age they started but they had been doing it for several years when the oldest one got his driver's license and we could use his family car to deliver 3 routes pretty quickly (Philadelphia Bulletin, mid 1960s afternoon paper). I shoveled snow from sidewalks before I was 16. I had a couple of regular customers but mostly the big kids (16 and up) got the roving jobs by going as a group and making short work of a sidewalk. My most steady shoveling job was for a neighbor with a Porsche and a driveway with a slope to his garage. He wanted it shoveled to the pavement. Most of the big kids wouldn't do that. I don't think it hurt me any.
I checked this out somewhat:
http://americanhistoryquotes.com
I noticed no quotes from Obama or Biden. A few from Pelosi were not controversial. None from Reid.
I think this place has a bit of a bias.
Thanks for confirming my post. :D
Anyone who hasn't noticed the erratic behavior, the hypocrisy, the constantly morphing positions of Gingrich and not understood that this guy is a psuedo-intellectual political chameleon is just not paying attention. Its one thing to support a candidate because they match your philosophies of governing. Obama's philosophies match a lot of people and sometimes he disappoints them in his failure to perservere in the face of resolute yet mindless opposition. But with Gingrich, you never really know what the guy seriously believes. There is a reason his party has shunned him up till now when it appears the Mormon may actually outlast all the others. He takes on positions on an intellectual basis, then sheds them when they don't work with the party base.
Why would you defend him anyway?
Quote from: AquaMan on November 27, 2011, 01:52:32 PM
Thanks for confirming my post. :D
Anyone who hasn't noticed the erratic behavior, the hypocrisy, the constantly morphing positions of Gingrich and not understood that this guy is a psuedo-intellectual political chameleon is just not paying attention. Its one thing to support a candidate because they match your philosophies of governing. Obama's philosophies match a lot of people and sometimes he disappoints them in his failure to perservere in the face of resolute yet mindless opposition. But with Gingrich, you never really know what the guy seriously believes. There is a reason his party has shunned him up till now when it appears the Mormon may actually outlast all the others. He takes on positions on an intellectual basis, then sheds them when they don't work with the party base.
Why would you defend him anyway?
I get your point. But has Gingrich been to 57 states yet? :P In a debate, Newt would crush Obama--and I am not totally on board with him.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 27, 2011, 01:52:32 PM
Thanks for confirming my post. :D
Why would you defend him anyway?
Why would anyone defend Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, ......
I too am not totally on board with Newt but given the choice between Newt or Obama, Obama would not get my vote. It usually boils down to the candidate that disgusts you the least. In my case, it's usually (but not always) a Republican.
Newt is not the only candidate out there on either side with some baggage. Samsonite or American Tourister... make your choice.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 27, 2011, 01:52:32 PM
Obama's philosophies match a lot of people and sometimes he disappoints them in his failure to perservere in the face of resolute yet mindless opposition.
Spoken like a true lemming Democrat.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 27, 2011, 02:14:45 PM
It usually boils down to the candidate that disgusts you the least.
That is so sad. Often true, but still sad.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 27, 2011, 12:28:36 PM
Neither of us wants kids working in sweat shops 60 hours a week. What would be wrong with offering the opportunity to a Jr High kid to push a broom a few hours a week to earn some spending money? I guess you would rather have them (continue to) sell drugs to their friends. I haven't kept up with the laws on child labor since I don't have any kids. When I was a teen, I had to get a work permit to join the local volunteer fire company at age 16. That's OK, there was some potential danger involved although volunteers under age 18 were not allowed to enter a burning building. We could work salvage, pull fire hoses etc. I would see no problem in allowing, not requiring, teenagers at 14 or 15 to perform janitorial duties such as floor sweeping, window washing (not requiring ladders etc).
Junior high is mostly 12, 13, 14. Ages of newspaper delivery. Not factory labor. But given the history of the country - right up until and even AFTER those "unwarranted government intrusions" in the form of those "evil" government REGULATIONS - the sweat shops would be right back as soon as possible. Just like they are in other parts of the world - those parts where we buy so much of our clothing from.
Newt is just another child molestation victim. I keep waiting for his campaign to trot that out as a defense for the mental problems he has displayed. Except that he married his molester for quite a few years after that....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 27, 2011, 02:31:48 PM
Junior high is mostly 12, 13, 14. Ages of newspaper delivery. Not factory labor. But given the history of the country - right up until and even AFTER those "unwarranted government intrusions" in the form of those "evil" government REGULATIONS - the sweat shops would be right back as soon as possible. Just like they are in other parts of the world - those parts where we buy so much of our clothing from.
Did I write anything favoring a return to sweatshops and factory work for kids? Are you equating some light janitorial work for factory sweat shop labor? I think you're letting high school English teacher down, again. You are adding thoughts and words to suit your contrariness. You are extrapolating beyond the permitted range.
Quote from: guido911 on November 27, 2011, 02:02:47 PM
I get your point. But has Gingrich been to 57 states yet? :P In a debate, Newt would crush Obama--and I am not totally on board with him.
Cute. I never have considered Obama as unerring, certainly he is generally unflappable, but just as capable of flubbing as anyone else.
Newt may not come off as well in debates as people think. Like Nixon, he could win the points and still lose. Smart guys often come off looking like smart asses.
He has so much baggage.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 27, 2011, 08:01:48 PM
Smart guys often come off looking like smart asses.
I don't think anyone really thinks Obama is stupid. Well, maybe a few do but they don't recognize the difference between stupid and doing things you really disagree with. Arrogance is another potential side affect of being "smart".
Quote from: AquaMan on November 27, 2011, 08:01:48 PM
Newt...has so much baggage.
Newt resigned from his position as Speaker due to ethics complaints. Put delicately, he's had a checkered history with his wives. Finally, his senior staff resigned last summer because he was focused on his business interests rather than running for President. They were being used to hawk his products rather than run a campaign, so they resigned en masse.
While we can have our various opinions of his character and suitability as a candidate, those senior staffers were closer to the action than any of us can ever hope to be, and that very closeness gives their action greater import.
I don't think Gingrich is electable. He's the flavor of the week for the anybody-but-Mitt crowd. Eventually the Republicans will realize that Romney is the only potentially electable candidate. The rest are merely a sideshow.
Newt is doing us all a favor, he understands american politics better than anyone and he is smarter than everyone else. We should stand awed and grateful for his magnanimity.
Quote from: carltonplace on November 29, 2011, 09:18:06 AM
Newt is doing us all a favor, he understands american politics better than anyone and he is smarter than everyone else. We should stand awed and grateful for his magnanimity.
Well, remember the sacrifices he's made too. He was so passionate about our country it led him to cheat on his wife.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2011, 10:41:40 AM
Well, remember the sacrifices he's made too. He was so passionate about our country it led him to cheat on his wife.
I LOL'd. Thanks, and happy late birthday to you.
Quote from: Ed W on November 27, 2011, 08:39:17 PM
Newt resigned from his position as Speaker due to ethics complaints. Put delicately, he's had a checkered history with his wives. Finally, his senior staff resigned last summer because he was focused on his business interests rather than running for President. They were being used to hawk his products rather than run a campaign, so they resigned en masse.
That alone settles it - Newt is the preeminent candidate for the job! We must have someone with the ethics of an alley cat, or at least no better than a slime mold. The more sordid the better, with massive quantities of titillating facts and figures as grist for the mill.
You predicted yourself as next President - sadly, I got a REALLY bad feeling about this one; that Newt will be next President.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 29, 2011, 12:22:25 PM
That alone settles it - Newt is the preeminent candidate for the job! We must have someone with the ethics of an alley cat, or at least no better than a slime mold. The more sordid the better, with massive quantities of titillating facts and figures as grist for the mill.
You predicted yourself as next President - sadly, I got a REALLY bad feeling about this one; that Newt will be next President.
He would be a "hold my nose, shudder, and pull the lever" candidate for me.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2011, 12:25:05 PM
He would be a "hold my nose, shudder, and pull the lever" candidate for me.
It it is between Obama or Newt, I would vote for either Hillary, or preferably Romney.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 29, 2011, 12:29:46 PM
It it is between Obama or Newt, I would vote for either Hillary, or preferably Romney.
Iowa is still 5 weeks away and the convention about 9 months. Romney still has plenty of time, but I honestly never saw Newt becoming a front-runner after the bungling of his campaign early on.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2011, 12:57:38 PM
Iowa is still 5 weeks away and the convention about 9 months. Romney still has plenty of time, but I honestly never saw Newt becoming a front-runner after the bungling of his campaign early on.
Don't worry, he still has time and the voters have proven themselves fickle time and time again....
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2011, 12:57:38 PM
Iowa is still 5 weeks away and the convention about 9 months. Romney still has plenty of time, but I honestly never saw Newt becoming a front-runner after the bungling of his campaign early on.
I have been thinking for many months that the R Party is just putting up all these jokers and clowns to make Newt look good. (I think I said that before here...??). And right now, he appears to be making that move.
Of all the clowns - Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Paul (I like Paul some, but he isn't a real candidate - too flakey for mainstream America), the choice still leaves us with Obama. That is the real, serious, major league, king-dog "hold my nose, shudder, and pull the lever" thing. Would try to start a grass roots movement to add "none of the above" to the ballot if those were the choices.
Quote from: Hoss on November 29, 2011, 12:59:05 PM
Don't worry, he still has time and the voters have proven themselves fickle time and time again....
Proven themselves idiots time and time again...
What a putz!
Newt Gingrich: 'I Call On The President To Repudiate The Concept Of The 99 And The 1′
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/29/377802/gigrich-repudiate-occupy/
Where were the GOPee ers when the TeaPotty was stinking everything up with their hate posters and hate speeches?
Newt sounds like FOTD. ;D
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 29, 2011, 02:56:37 PM
Proven themselves idiots time and time again...
And the difference is?.....
THE HORROR! Gingrich Praises Singapore's 'Very Draconian' Laws That Mandate Executions For Drug Possession
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NkwsJvOeozo
" he's going to make this country into a right wing police state, and he's supposed to be the GOP's ideas guy?"
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 29, 2011, 02:55:56 PM
I have been thinking for many months that the R Party is just putting up all these jokers and clowns to make Newt look good.
Of all the clowns - Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Paul (I like Paul some, but he isn't a real candidate - too flakey for mainstream America), the choice still leaves us with Obama.
These aren't the only candidates Republicans have to choose from. The most conservative of the group hasn't even been mentioned (since he polls so low).
Are you talking about Huntsman? He is the only one I have respect for and consider as a serious person. The rest are just trying to sell books.
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 29, 2011, 05:52:49 PM
" he's going to make this country into a right wing police state, and he's supposed to be the GOP's ideas guy?"
Nah, the obstructionist Democratic controlled Senate won't allow it to happen.
Quote from: joiei on November 29, 2011, 07:53:28 PM
The rest are just trying to sell books.
Great observation.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 29, 2011, 10:45:21 PM
Nah, the obstructionist Democratic controlled Senate won't allow it to happen.
Have you gotten down on your knees and given thanks for that yet? Or would you prefer '1984'?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2011, 09:23:52 AM
Have you gotten down on your knees and given thanks for that yet?
No, but I'll think about it after you get down on your knees and thank the Republican house for saving us from the left.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 30, 2011, 10:20:18 AM
No, but I'll think about it after you get down on your knees and thank the Republican house for saving us from the left.
You mean with Newt's "Contract ON America"?
Yeah, I appreciate how they have "saved" us from a $900 billion debt in 1981, with their policies and misguided financial bungling, turning that into a $14 trillion debt just 30 years later.
I appreciate how they have turned our economy into a 'warfare' based economy, ala "1984". Major improvement to any of those pesky little peaceful times.
I also appreciate how they have dismantled the fundamental retirement system that had evolved in this country based on defined benefit pensions. Good times!!
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 30, 2011, 10:20:18 AM
No, but I'll think about it after you get down on your knees and thank the Republican house for saving us from the left.
How about they start saving us from themselves?....alot of you guys on the right act like they haven't been spending like drunk sailors since Bush Jr was in office. And those two years the Dems held the house? They didn't have enough of a majority in the senate to do anything. Kinda like what's been happening now. I guess it hurts when the shoe is on the other foot.
Quote from: joiei on November 29, 2011, 07:53:28 PM
Are you talking about Huntsman? He is the only one I have respect for and consider as a serious person. The rest are just trying to sell books.
Yes. Curiously, he is the most conservative of the group (so far) but is hampered by low charisma and a stumbling start. His handlers may have failed him. Anyway, this is a guy who could probably do more for the party than people realize. He worked in the Obama administration, because he is capable, yet stayed true to his beliefs. He is young enough, clean enough and intelligent enough to lead. Too bad his party doesn't seem to admire those qualities.
Does he have a book out?
Re: Huntsman . . . somewhere in my obsessive political reading, I came across some reportage that seemed to hint that Huntsman "wouldn't rule out" a third party run. Which surprised me but then sounded entirely reasonable. A lot of people have suggested that a 3rd party would come from the left -- a Hillary-type who'd try to calve off some of Obama's weak support. I think there's an equally good chance that a 3rd party would come from the right . . . to take advantage of Romney's weakness amongst the GOP but also to present someone not beholden to the GOP orthodoxies to the general public in 2012.
Come to think of it, Hunstman/Christie could be a huge 3rd party ticket.
Quote from: we vs us on November 30, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
I think there's an equally good chance that a 3rd party would come from the right . . .
Or at least you are hoping so to insure an Obama win.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 30, 2011, 10:46:33 AM
Or at least you are hoping so to insure an Obama win.
With the existing field it's already insured.
Quote from: we vs us on November 30, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
Re: Huntsman . . . somewhere in my obsessive political reading, I came across some reportage that seemed to hint that Huntsman "wouldn't rule out" a third party run. Which surprised me but then sounded entirely reasonable. A lot of people have suggested that a 3rd party would come from the left -- a Hillary-type who'd try to calve off some of Obama's weak support. I think there's an equally good chance that a 3rd party would come from the right . . . to take advantage of Romney's weakness amongst the GOP but also to present someone not beholden to the GOP orthodoxies to the general public in 2012.
Come to think of it, Hunstman/Christie could be a huge 3rd party ticket.
Huntsman/Christie would be huge. Probably the only ticket that would scare Obama. Heck, he might even welcome them!
Red, you're obsessing. Relax.
Quote from: Townsend on November 30, 2011, 10:53:58 AM
With the existing field it's already insured.
I'll agree with likely but not insured. At least not quite yet.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 30, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
Red, you're obsessing. Relax.
Not allowed to have any Marshall's here at work. :(
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2011, 10:25:57 AM
Yeah, I appreciate how they have "saved" us from a $900 billion debt in 1981, with their policies and misguided financial bungling, turning that into a $14 trillion debt just 30 years later.
I appreciate how they have turned our economy into a 'warfare' based economy, ala "1984". Major improvement to any of those pesky little peaceful times.
I also appreciate how they have dismantled the fundamental retirement system that had evolved in this country based on defined benefit pensions. Good times!!
If you want to go back to 1981, remember the house was controlled by the Democrats from 1955 to 1995. The Senate was controlled by the Democrats from 1955 to 1995 except for 6 years 1981-1987.
Edit:
Have you forgotten about the wartime economy of the 60s?
Do you remember a word "vesting" with regard to old fashioned retirement plans and the non-portability of those plans from one employer to another?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 30, 2011, 10:46:33 AM
Or at least you are hoping so to insure an Obama win.
Geez, chill . . . . I'm not on the partisan soapbox this AM, just trying to divine the shape of what's swirling around.
I think no matter which side of the aisle you're on, it's obvious that 1) this isn't a standard election, 2) old ways of doing things are shifting and/or crumbling almost daily and 3) with the economy in the shitter, nothing's assured.
EDIT: Also, I think the space between how the GOP base votes in the primaries vs. how the independents will vote in the general is large enough to warrant a center-right third party. But for any third party -- right or left -- the question has to be: what's the rationale for going outside the standard two party system? What are the existing two parties not doing that a third could achieve? Our politics are pretty simple economics, and a third party has to fill a compelling need. IMO, of course.
Quote from: we vs us on November 30, 2011, 11:34:30 AM
Geez, chill . . . . I'm not on the partisan soapbox this AM,
You must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this AM to take my comment so much more seriously than it was intended. I guess I should have put a smiley at the end of my post.
AquaMan must have done the same.
Or.......maybe you're a bit defensive about two obvious non-republicans discussing the plight of your party? :D
That is understandable. Unavoidable, but understandable.
This is the republican who will run for President next year as a Libertarian. He will syphon off many, many republican voters if Romney, Newt, or Cain is the republican nominee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson
He beat an incumbent democrat to become governor of New Mexico. He has a record of cutting government budgets, lowering taxes, and fighting crime. During his two terms in office, he set national records for his use of vetoes, more than the other 49 governors combined. He is also an Ironman athlete and campaigned for marijuana decriminalization.
Even though he has always been a republican, he could be the poster child for both the Libertarian and Tea parties.
He could become the Ross Perot of the new milenium.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 30, 2011, 01:05:54 PM
Or.......maybe you're a bit defensive about two obvious non-republicans discussing the plight of your party? :D
Not anymore than when Democrats get defensive about Republicans trashing the Democratic prospects. You can look in the mirror too.
But.... I'm not overwhelmingly happy with any of the candidates either. I doubt any of the leading candidates pandering to the TEA Party could win the general election no matter how much Obama's ratings tank or if he continues to fail to fix the economy.
Really. Relax a bit. No need to do tit for tat when we're just discussing the process, not taking sides.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 30, 2011, 11:14:49 AM
If you want to go back to 1981, remember the house was controlled by the Democrats from 1955 to 1995. The Senate was controlled by the Democrats from 1955 to 1995 except for 6 years 1981-1987.
Edit:
Have you forgotten about the wartime economy of the 60s?
Do you remember a word "vesting" with regard to old fashioned retirement plans and the non-portability of those plans from one employer to another?
Let's go back to the beginning, then. From 1776 it took until 1981 to get all the way up to $900 billion in debt. So basically, what the RWRE calls "tax and spend" was embraced, enhanced, and implemented in a MUCH bigger way by themselves. Then 30 years to 14 trillion. All of it done by "sell out" Congress and Presidents.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2011, 01:51:51 PM
Let's go back to the beginning, then.
Why? Pretty much everyone recognizes that we are (even presently) spending way more than we are taking in. The differences come from the proposed solutions. Both sides have drawn lines in the sand that neither will move. Both sides are standing on deeply held principles. No need to rehash them here.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 30, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Why? Pretty much everyone recognizes that we are (even presently) spending way more than we are taking in. The differences come from the proposed solutions. Both sides have drawn lines in the sand that neither will move. Both sides are standing on deeply held principles. No need to rehash them here.
Rehash just so everyone is clear about the history.
And Newt's place in that history.
And to counter the BS thrown around about how the current people in office are somehow destroying our country. The deficit increased EVERY year in Bush's term, while it has been decreasing EVERY year so far in Obama's term - even with the obstructionist Republicontins fighting it every step of the way and hoping for failure.
And yet, the redefiners of history somehow are trying to cast that as getting "worse and worse". I think a decline EVERY year in the deficit is a very good thing. Wish it was a larger decline, but still, the trend is the right direction.
There are plenty of reasons to not want Obama in office (and I have just barely started on that), but economic activity or birth certificates aren't it. How about stopping the lies and get to the real points?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2011, 02:30:38 PM
but economic activity or birth certificates aren't it. How about stopping the lies and get to the real points?
Birth certificate was never an issue with me. Due to some of the other numbers you have presented, I have doubts about your sources or at least the interpretation of the data.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2011, 02:30:38 PM
And Newt's place in that history.
I am not a huge fan of Newt but I believe he was in the House during the Clinton Admin which you so proudly point out had a budget surplus.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2011, 10:25:57 AM
You mean with Newt's "Contract ON America"?
Yeah, I appreciate how they have "saved" us from a $900 billion debt in 1981, with their policies and misguided financial bungling, turning that into a $14 trillion debt just 30 years later.
I appreciate how they have turned our economy into a 'warfare' based economy, ala "1984". Major improvement to any of those pesky little peaceful times.
I also appreciate how they have dismantled the fundamental retirement system that had evolved in this country based on defined benefit pensions. Good times!!
Defined benefit pensions have bankrupted many major corporations as well as local, state, and now the Federal government.
I have to hold my nose at the thought of any praise for Gingrich as I hated his snipey partisanship. However, he did lead a Congress that presented a surplus by the end of the 1990's partially due to good collaboration with Clinton but Congress at that time truly understood what fiscal conservatism was. What happened since then is a complete mystery to me, it's like they laid down for Bush and have left the check book unattended ever since.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 30, 2011, 03:25:58 PM
Defined benefit pensions have bankrupted many major corporations as well as local, state, and now the Federal government.
No, the looting and mismanagement of defined benefit pensions have bankrupted many major corporations as well as some state and local governments. It seems to commonly be related to shady derivatives deals schemed up by Wall Streeters salivating at the chance to earn fees on the massive funds. The problem is mainly corruption. We've got corrupt management, corrupt companies, and corrupt government, and corrupt unions (although less so than in their heyday).
Of course, part of the problem
right now is a whole bunch of sky is falling talk because of the economic situation. When we see recovery, many of the pension funds will suddenly find themselves in a much better position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=share (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=share)
LOL, the first part of the video made me feel a bit better about the Grinch. Thankfully, the little nanites that clean my brain of advertising brainwash kicked in as soon as it was over and I remembered that the only reason I thought that is because it's so rare to see prominent conservatives who aren't completely divorced from reality these days. I hate that the discourse in this country has gotten so bad that a single toe in the pool of the real world can elicit that kind of response.
It would be nice to have more than a smattering of politicians that were willing to take a swim.
Steamer trunk sized baggage.
Anyone else think he looks a lot like Mr. Potter on "Its a Wonderful Life"?
There are some people scared sh!tless about Newt in here. Guess since Obama cannot run on his record all that's left is to attack the GOP candidates.
Well, I'm not one of them. Newt is busy spewing on Fox right now about how Obama is raising 100's of millions in campaign funds to run the dirtiest campaign ever to keep him out of office. What an ego. Cain gave him the idea though.
But really? If he has some inside info that he can document his charges with why doesn't he share? Or is he just projecting what he would do if he were president?
Guido, this guy is bad news. Romney may be hard to swallow for republicans, but this guy represents everything both extremes and a lot of people in the middle simply despise. Most Democrats would love to see him as the candidate with his steamer trunks.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 30, 2011, 08:21:07 PM
Well, I'm not one of them. Newt is busy spewing on Fox right now about how Obama is raising 100's of millions in campaign funds to run the dirtiest campaign ever to keep him out of office. What an ego. Cain gave him the idea though.
But really? If he has some inside info that he can document his charges with why doesn't he share? Or is he just projecting what he would do if he were president?
Guido, this guy is bad news. Romney may be hard to swallow for republicans, but this guy represents everything both extremes and a lot of people in the middle simply despise. Most Democrats would love to see him as the candidate with his steamer trunks.
I said that I am not sold on this guy. But one thing is certain, he would tear Obama to pieces in a debate. Worse than what Romney would do. The thing with Newt is that the baggage he has is already known. Running ads attacking his personal proclivities or anything else is on the table and no one really seems to care about it.
On the other hand, right now, one year out, why aren't folks in here talking up Obama's accomplishments rather than attacking GOPers?
Quote from: nathanm on November 30, 2011, 06:11:57 PM
No, the looting and mismanagement of defined benefit pensions have bankrupted many major corporations as well as some state and local governments. It seems to commonly be related to shady derivatives deals schemed up by Wall Streeters salivating at the chance to earn fees on the massive funds. The problem is mainly corruption. We've got corrupt management, corrupt companies, and corrupt government, and corrupt unions (although less so than in their heyday).
Of course, part of the problem right now is a whole bunch of sky is falling talk because of the economic situation. When we see recovery, many of the pension funds will suddenly find themselves in a much better position.
People are living much longer these days as well as the spouses of deceased former employees of corporations who still reap pension and insurance benefits even 20 to 30 years after the retirement of the worker from the employer who provided said benefits in the first place. When the concept of a pension came around, people generally would enjoy a 5 to 10 year retirement and their spouse might outlive them another 5 years or so.
Blame the global financial clusterf*ck on the banksters and derivatives all you like. Yes, they are partially to blame. The real problem is that globally, we are paying for far too much
un-productivity. Civil servant and production line worker retirement programs for 20 to 25 years worth of service simply are not realistic any more. Someone who retires as a firefighter with a fully-vested pension when they are 45 years old will likely draw off that pension for more years than they were employed in the first place, not to mention the increased health care costs as they age.
European workers are used to many weeks of "holiday" each year, copious health benefits, and a young retirement age. I always marveled at how a Turkish friend of mine could live like a rock star with nothing more than a part time job in the states while her mother and father served as a teacher and city bus driver in Istanbul. I would ask Pinar how she could live like she did and she said "The government takes care of me".
The real problem is Nathan, we've used the global credit card for far too long to supply benefits and money to people who never did work for it or don't work for it any more. I don't know the exact figure, but it's simply not sustainable for 50% of the population to not work to be dependent on the productivity of the other 50% to carry them along.
Well Guido, maybe because this is a thread about Newt? And, maybe no one touts his accomplishments on here because no one in Oklahoma would care or admit that Obama has done anything right...ever?
Anyway, there is much about Newt that the voters have forgotten about, never heard about or were way too young to know about. He is what they call a target rich environment in the military.
Quote from: guido911 on November 30, 2011, 08:36:42 PM
I said that I am not sold on this guy. But one thing is certain, he would tear Obama to pieces in a debate. Worse than what Romney would do. The thing with Newt is that the baggage he has is already known. Running ads attacking his personal proclivities or anything else is on the table and no one really seems to care about it.
On the other hand, right now, one year out, why aren't folks in here talking up Obama's accomplishments rather than attacking GOPers?
I really don't care how bad Gingrich would make President Obama appear in a debate. I'm far more concerned about his leadership skills. Candidate Obama looked great in debates. Remember what a great orator he is? He sucks as a leader, that's why we are still circling the drain three years later.
As far as the "great orator" point, he's got a deep voice, that's about it. Otherwise his, "ahhh, ummm, wellll..." really grates on me after awhile. He's really not
that articulate to start with.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 30, 2011, 08:21:07 PM
Well, I'm not one of them. Newt is busy spewing on Fox right now about how Obama is raising 100's of millions in campaign funds to run the dirtiest campaign ever to keep him out of office. What an ego. Cain gave him the idea though.
But really? If he has some inside info that he can document his charges with why doesn't he share? Or is he just projecting what he would do if he were president?
Guido, this guy is bad news. Romney may be hard to swallow for republicans, but this guy represents everything both extremes and a lot of people in the middle simply despise. Most Democrats would love to see him as the candidate with his steamer trunks.
I'm definitely not crazy about a polar opposite either, and Gingrich is going to have to eventually outrun allegations of being simply another government wonk rather than someone with real business experience. He's a great academian and has a very good grasp of the Constitution, our history, and our heritage. However, in Newt's world tax cuts create jobs in a vacuum. I'd vote for Newt a lot quicker than Obama, but I'd have to pick Romney from Newt if they are the front-runners if I were to look for real world experience in how to create jobs which seems to be our largest challenge right now.
Besides, can you imagine having to entertain a "Newt" with a straight face if you were a foreign leader?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 30, 2011, 09:01:35 PM
I'm definitely not crazy about a polar opposite either, and Gingrich is going to have to eventually outrun allegations of being simply another government wonk rather than someone with real business experience. He's a great academian and has a very good grasp of the Constitution, our history, and our heritage. However, in Newt's world tax cuts create jobs in a vacuum. I'd vote for Newt a lot quicker than Obama, but I'd have to pick Romney from Newt if they are the front-runners if I were to look for real world experience in how to create jobs which seems to be our largest challenge right now.
Besides, can you imagine having to entertain a "Newt" with a straight face if you were a foreign leader?
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090630160120/uncyclopedia/images/2/2f/Geico-gecko.jpg)
oh. wait a minute... you said "Newt"...my bad.
;D
Quote from: Hoss on November 30, 2011, 09:45:37 PM
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090630160120/uncyclopedia/images/2/2f/Geico-gecko.jpg)
oh. wait a minute... you said "Newt"...my bad.
;D
Close enough.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2011, 02:30:38 PM
Rehash just so everyone is clear about the history.
And Newt's place in that history.
And to counter the BS thrown around about how the current people in office are somehow destroying our country. The deficit increased EVERY year in Bush's term, while it has been decreasing EVERY year so far in Obama's term - even with the obstructionist Republicontins fighting it every step of the way and hoping for failure.
And yet, the redefiners of history somehow are trying to cast that as getting "worse and worse". I think a decline EVERY year in the deficit is a very good thing. Wish it was a larger decline, but still, the trend is the right direction.
There are plenty of reasons to not want Obama in office (and I have just barely started on that), but economic activity or birth certificates aren't it. How about stopping the lies and get to the real points?
I'm willing to take the chance the real Obama appears for his second term and all our wishes can come true....
Quote from: Conan71 on November 30, 2011, 08:45:58 PM
People are living much longer these days as well as the spouses of deceased former employees of corporations who still reap pension and insurance benefits even 20 to 30 years after the retirement of the worker from the employer who provided said benefits in the first place. When the concept of a pension came around, people generally would enjoy a 5 to 10 year retirement and their spouse might outlive them another 5 years or so.
Blame the global financial clusterf*ck on the banksters and derivatives all you like. Yes, they are partially to blame. The real problem is that globally, we are paying for far too much un-productivity. Civil servant and production line worker retirement programs for 20 to 25 years worth of service simply are not realistic any more. Someone who retires as a firefighter with a fully-vested pension when they are 45 years old will likely draw off that pension for more years than they were employed in the first place, not to mention the increased health care costs as they age.
European workers are used to many weeks of "holiday" each year, copious health benefits, and a young retirement age. I always marveled at how a Turkish friend of mine could live like a rock star with nothing more than a part time job in the states while her mother and father served as a teacher and city bus driver in Istanbul. I would ask Pinar how she could live like she did and she said "The government takes care of me".
The real problem is Nathan, we've used the global credit card for far too long to supply benefits and money to people who never did work for it or don't work for it any more. I don't know the exact figure, but it's simply not sustainable for 50% of the population to not work to be dependent on the productivity of the other 50% to carry them along.
The life expectancy thing is a pack of BS. While life expectancy at birth has risen quite significantly, mainly due to continued reductions in infant mortality and reduced highway deaths, life expectancy at 65 hasn't increased all that much (a year and a half since 1990, or about 4 years since 1960, most of which happened by 1980), especially for those in the lower half of the income distribution, and even more particularly for black people. It's a load of smile sold to you to justify stiffing people for a significant fraction of their agreed upon compensation package and directing it to the top. It's a nice story, but it's not true.
I'm not saying we should go back to the golden days of 25 years and you're done, but total compensation hasn't increased for most people since 1980. What gains have been made have gone to pay for increased health care costs.
Even back in the 50s less than 60% of the population was employed at any given time. Even now more than half of your compatriots are employed. 58.4% at last count. Get the recession done with, and we'll be back up to 60% employment-population in no time. In France, that paragon of socialism, 64% of the population was employed in 2010. Of the OECD countries, we're in the lower half. We're in the top ten for people of retirement age, though! Apparently, we have uncommonly industrious seniors.
Also, I'm confused about how an extra two or three weeks off somehow ruins a country's economy. It's not as if they're all taking the whole year off.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 01, 2011, 01:02:13 AM
I'm willing to take the chance the real Obama appears for his second term and all our wishes can come true....
Pretty risky choice. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. ;D
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 01, 2011, 01:02:13 AM
I'm willing to take the chance the real Obama appears for his second term and all our wishes can come true....
The biggest problem with the real Obama is his announced intention to continue and advance the dismantling of the US Constitution, especially as embodied by his appointments to the Supreme Court.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 01, 2011, 08:59:12 AM
The biggest problem with the real Obama is his announced intention to continue and advance the dismantling of the US Constitution, especially as embodied by his appointments to the Supreme Court.
It's strange how he's done almost nothing he said he would do, and almost everything the pundits warned us about. Hmmmm.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 01, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
It's strange how he's done... almost everything the pundits warned us about. Hmmmm.
And those things were?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 01, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
It's strange how he's done almost nothing he said he would do, and almost everything the pundits warned us about. Hmmmm.
Methinks you have a very specific group of pundits you're referring to.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 01, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
It's strange how he's done almost nothing he said he would do, and almost everything the pundits warned us about. Hmmmm.
Just wait until second term...he will be doing one of the big things he talked about, but put on hold to kind of keep people lulled into a false sense of security.
It is directly related to his Supreme Court appointments, his and Holders "Fast and Furious" program - the one a lot like Bush's "gun walking" program, and his cozy relationship with the Brady Gun Control Morons. With no election pending, he has four years to mount a massive sustained attack on the Right of the People to bear arms.
Should one be interested in trying to preserve the few remaining parts of the US Constitution, one would be joining the NRA today.
Quote from: we vs us on December 01, 2011, 09:12:51 AM
Methinks you have a very specific group of pundits you're referring to.
Methinks he subscribes to the alternate reality (http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/) that is modern Conservatism. I wish they'd stop inventing their own facts.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 01, 2011, 09:18:58 AM
Just wait until second term...he will be doing one of the big things he talked about, but put on hold to kind of keep people lulled into a false sense of security.
It is directly related to his Supreme Court appointments, his and Holders "Fast and Furious" program - the one a lot like Bush's "gun walking" program, and his cozy relationship with the Brady Gun Control Morons. With no election pending, he has four years to mount a massive sustained attack on the Right of the People to bear arms.
Should one be interested in trying to preserve the few remaining parts of the US Constitution, one would be joining the NRA today.
Normally I can tell when you're writing tongue-in-cheek, but this doesn't seem to be one of those times.
Do you REALLY think this is what a 2nd Obama term would look like?
"He's hoarding all the bullets ya' know. Pretending to support gun rights but refusing to sell us bullets. Known fact. Second term he'll have nothing to lose and will take the guns too. Pass it around. God's truth ya' know.
Oh, and don't forget the big Gun and Knife show in town next week. Get em' before them morons shut us down!"
There's some of your pundits.
Quote from: we vs us on December 01, 2011, 09:30:11 AM
Normally I can tell when you're writing tongue-in-cheek, but this doesn't seem to be one of those times.
Do you REALLY think this is what a 2nd Obama term would look like?
I am NOT talking tongue in cheek here. I am absolutely dead serious about the US Constitution, and its Amendments. This is exactly what Obama talked about virtually every day of his public life until he got into the serious campaign for election to President. He was very active in the efforts in Illinois to deny people the right to own, carry and use firearms - check the state laws on it. I don't go through or to Illinois by choice and if forced to go through, I absolutely never spend a penny in that state. Fill up the tank before going through, eat, etc, then wait until I have emerged back into the light on the other side. If forced to go there on business, will spend the absolute minimum required, even though on expense account.
His two appointments both lied during confirmation hearings - both said that the Right to bear arms was, and I quote - "settled law". Then when they voted in the minority on the latest ruling on those rights, both made comments to the effect that they saw nothing in the Constitution or court cases that would indicate it was settled law or that it was an individual right. IF there were ever a case for impeachment, it would be for those two - much more significant lie than Billy Bob ever dreamed of saying.
And finally, to answer your last question directly - no, I do not think this is what a 2nd term would be. I KNOW it is what a second term would be like. Because he has TOLD us his intentions. For years.
In fairness and in the effort to be an equal opportunity abuser - the BATF has had the "Fast and Furious" kind of program before - the Bush "gun walking" thing I mentioned. And they have a record of being inconsistent, unreasonable, irrational, illogical, oppressive, and criminal (these kind of programs break Federal law about providing arms to criminals.) They have been an out of control agency for decades.
Check out what happened in the UK and Australia. How there guns were slowly taken, one type at a time. And how violent crime with firearms has increased dramatically for both - since the criminals know they have nothing to fear. And note how every one of the states that has concealed carry has had decreases in violent crime, since more criminals know they might get tagged.
Join the NRA!!
Why don't you provide citations for your factoids so we can evaluate your claims? My BS detector is going off.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 01, 2011, 09:46:26 AM
I am NOT talking tongue in cheek here. I am absolutely dead serious about the US Constitution, and its Amendments. This is exactly what Obama talked about virtually every day of his public life until he got into the serious campaign for election to President. He was very active in the efforts in Illinois to deny people the right to own, carry and use firearms - check the state laws on it. I don't go through or to Illinois by choice and if forced to go through, I absolutely never spend a penny in that state. Fill up the tank before going through, eat, etc, then wait until I have emerged back into the light on the other side. If forced to go there on business, will spend the absolute minimum required, even though on expense account.
His two appointments both lied during confirmation hearings - both said that the Right to bear arms was, and I quote - "settled law". Then when they voted in the minority on the latest ruling on those rights, both made comments to the effect that they saw nothing in the Constitution or court cases that would indicate it was settled law or that it was an individual right. IF there were ever a case for impeachment, it would be for those two - much more significant lie than Billy Bob ever dreamed of saying.
And finally, to answer your last question directly - no, I do not think this is what a 2nd term would be. I KNOW it is what a second term would be like. Because he has TOLD us his intentions. For years.
In fairness and in the effort to be an equal opportunity abuser - the BATF has had the "Fast and Furious" kind of program before - the Bush "gun walking" thing I mentioned. And they have a record of being inconsistent, unreasonable, irrational, illogical, oppressive, and criminal (these kind of programs break Federal law about providing arms to criminals.) They have been an out of control agency for decades.
Check out what happened in the UK and Australia. How there guns were slowly taken, one type at a time. And how violent crime with firearms has increased dramatically for both - since the criminals know they have nothing to fear. And note how every one of the states that has concealed carry has had decreases in violent crime, since more criminals know they might get tagged.
Join the NRA!!
Wow.
EDIT: Just . . . wow.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 01, 2011, 09:46:26 AM
Check out what happened in the UK and Australia. How there guns were slowly taken, one type at a time. And how violent crime with firearms has increased dramatically for both - since the criminals know they have nothing to fear. And note how every one of the states that has concealed carry has had decreases in violent crime, since more criminals know they might get tagged.
Somehow I missed this the first time around, but your assertion flies in the face of fact. The fact is, murderers murder with whatever they have available. Guns merely make it a bit easier for them. (or harder, if their target has a gun) We, who have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, also have the one of the highest rates of gun crime. Go figure.
Quote from: nathanm on December 01, 2011, 01:06:12 AM
The life expectancy thing is a pack of BS. While life expectancy at birth has risen quite significantly, mainly due to continued reductions in infant mortality and reduced highway deaths, life expectancy at 65 hasn't increased all that much (a year and a half since 1990, or about 4 years since 1960, most of which happened by 1980), especially for those in the lower half of the income distribution, and even more particularly for black people. It's a load of smile sold to you to justify stiffing people for a significant fraction of their agreed upon compensation package and directing it to the top. It's a nice story, but it's not true.
I'm not saying we should go back to the golden days of 25 years and you're done, but total compensation hasn't increased for most people since 1980. What gains have been made have gone to pay for increased health care costs.
Even back in the 50s less than 60% of the population was employed at any given time. Even now more than half of your compatriots are employed. 58.4% at last count. Get the recession done with, and we'll be back up to 60% employment-population in no time. In France, that paragon of socialism, 64% of the population was employed in 2010. Of the OECD countries, we're in the lower half. We're in the top ten for people of retirement age, though! Apparently, we have uncommonly industrious seniors.
Also, I'm confused about how an extra two or three weeks off somehow ruins a country's economy. It's not as if they're all taking the whole year off.
If you don't recognize there's a problem with 40% living off the productivity of the other 60% (a percentage of which are on the government payroll which also consumes from the productivity of others who work outside the government) with an ever increasing life-span then I can't help you.
Do you not recall that pension benefits is one of the main issues cited in the GM bankruptcy or the debt crisis in Europe? Or is that all just conservative clap-trap in your theoretical world?
Quote from: we vs us on December 01, 2011, 09:55:17 AM
Wow.
EDIT: Just . . . wow.
I've worked with several serious NRA members. They seem fairly normal and well adjusted til the subject of Obama going after their guns comes up. Then they get trancelike and begin spewing stuff. Its scary. Don't expect much in the way of documentation.
No offense H. Just observing behavior. I support all the constitution and its amendments.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 01, 2011, 10:06:08 AM
I've worked with several serious NRA members. They seem fairly normal and well adjusted til the subject of Obama going after their guns comes up. Then they get trancelike and begin spewing stuff. Its scary. Don't expect much in the way of documentation.
No offense H. Just observing behavior. I support all the constitution and its amendments.
Honestly, all the NRA accomplished with their doomsday scenarios after Obama was elected was to drive up gun and ammo prices for a year or two. It was great for gun and ammo vendors, volume and profits increased sharply. At the last Wanenmacher's my understanding was there were a lot of people trying to get rid of used semi-auto rifles they bought at the height of the paranoia for more than what new ones are selling for now. That's why I don't tend to follow the herd on fear-mongering like that.
I think the 2nd Amendment is here to stay much like Roe V. Wade. However, those issues keep certain candidates relevant in the minds of voters and also help keep certain lobbying groups like NRA in very good financial condition.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 01, 2011, 10:14:05 AM
Honestly, all the NRA accomplished with their doomsday scenarios after Obama was elected was to drive up gun and ammo prices for a year or two. It was great for gun and ammo vendors, volume and profits increased sharply. At the last Wanenmacher's my understanding was there were a lot of people trying to get rid of used semi-auto rifles they bought at the height of the paranoia for more than what new ones are selling for now. That's why I don't tend to follow the herd on fear-mongering like that.
I think the 2nd Amendment is here to stay much like Roe V. Wade. However, those issues keep certain candidates relevant in the minds of voters and also help keep certain lobbying groups like NRA in very good financial condition.
Perfectly said.
Quote from: nathanm on December 01, 2011, 09:49:25 AM
Why don't you provide citations for your factoids so we can evaluate your claims? My BS detector is going off.
Here is a good place to start.
http://www.nraila.org/
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15805
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15804
Ban on recreational shooting.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=15781
How many would ever be enough??
Check the confirmation hearings for Sotomayer and Kagan.
Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.
In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 01, 2011, 10:02:23 AM
If you don't recognize there's a problem with 40% living off the productivity of the other 60% (a percentage of which are on the government payroll which also consumes from the productivity of others who work outside the government) with an ever increasing life-span then I can't help you.
Do you not recall that pension benefits is one of the main issues cited in the GM bankruptcy or the debt crisis in Europe? Or is that all just conservative clap-trap in your theoretical world?
Why would I recognize the employment to population ratio as a problem, given that it is the historical norm through good times and bad, except for an aberrant period in the last decade when it was temporarily a few points higher? Do keep in mind that 20% of our population is either too young or too old to work. Of the working age population, 7% cannot work because they are disabled. So yeah, try closer to 5% living off the largesse (if you can call living in tent cities we regularly tear down largesse) of the rest of us due to their own choices (or undiagnosed disability). And the idea that government workers provide nothing of value is ludicrous on its face.
Also, why would I subscribe to this ever increasing lifespan explanation regarding pensions when increases in life expectancy at age 65 have slowed to nearly a halt since 1990? I'm pretty sure I outlined my specific thoughts on GM in the thread we had on their BK here.
Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-12/kagan-said-she-was-not-sympathetic-toward-gun-rights-claim-in-1987-memo.html
Confirmation hearings
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/grassley-asks-kagan-didnt-god-give-us-the-right-to-bear-arms.php
Quote from: nathanm on December 01, 2011, 10:41:27 AM
Why would I recognize the employment to population ratio as a problem, given that it is the historical norm through good times and bad, except for an aberrant period in the last decade when it was temporarily a few points higher? Do keep in mind that 20% of our population is either too young or too old to work. Of the working age population, 7% cannot work because they are disabled. So yeah, try closer to 5% living off the largesse (if you can call living in tent cities we regularly tear down largesse) of the rest of us due to their own choices (or undiagnosed disability). And the idea that government workers provide nothing of value is ludicrous on its face.
Also, why would I subscribe to this ever increasing lifespan explanation regarding pensions when increases in life expectancy at age 65 have slowed to nearly a halt since 1990? I'm pretty sure I outlined my specific thoughts on GM in the thread we had on their BK here.
Fine, keep creating your own reality at your own peril.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 01, 2011, 11:00:22 AM
Fine, keep creating your own reality at your own peril.
Uh, I based my position on the facts and you have the gall to tell me I'm the one creating my own reality? How about you tell me why it is the information I posted doesn't lead to the conclusion I derived?
Quote from: AquaMan on December 01, 2011, 10:06:08 AM
I've worked with several serious NRA members. They seem fairly normal and well adjusted til the subject of Obama going after their guns comes up. Then they get trancelike and begin spewing stuff. Its scary. Don't expect much in the way of documentation.
No offense H. Just observing behavior. I support all the constitution and its amendments.
Whatever you do, don't engage these folks or purposely lead them into discussing the "facts". You might as well try to flip a Catholic. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on December 01, 2011, 11:26:20 AM
Uh, I based my position on the facts and you have the gall to tell me I'm the one creating my own reality? How about you tell me why it is the information I posted doesn't lead to the conclusion I derived?
You don't seem to understand that pensions are generally leveraged on the current and future workforce and that typical pension-bearing jobs are going the way of steam trains as more manufacturing jobs are exported or traditional union jobs are going non union (like Honda or Toyota plants being non-union). As well state and local government in such tight economic times can't afford to fully fund pensions any more. Add to that with the baby boomers cycling through retirement now, there's a growing population of people who need ever more expensive health care benefits which no one could come close to estimating those costs 30 to 40 years ago.
The reality of the situation is that governments and companies are finding they cannot afford to have 1/3 to 1/2 of their "payroll" going to people who no longer produce for them. A lot of debt has been created trying to keep up with pension plans. That's also the primary reason the USPS is teetering on going tits up. According to USPS their operations are profitable, it's the amount they have been mandated to put into reserve for pensions which is killing them.
Your point about USPS is precisely correct. USPS has been mandated to prefund their pension plan in a way not required of any other private company. This is not a problem with the pension itself, it's a problem with the law making it appear that USPS has some sort of unreasonable pension burden. Their pension fund has a $75 billion surplus over what is actuarially required.
A pension is just as much a part of a worker's compensation package as his paycheck. Responsible companies have no problems managing their pension liabilities, just as they don't have trouble making payroll. Why should they, given that there haven't been large increases in longevity as you claimed?
Edited to add: By the way, I fully understand the prevailing anti-pension narrative. It's a great story that hits all the right points. I even used to believe it. Further research found me unable to understand how one gets there from the facts, so I reconsidered my opinion on the subject.
Quote from: nathanm on December 01, 2011, 01:35:12 PM
Edited to add: By the way, I fully understand the prevailing anti-pension narrative. It's a great story that hits all the right points. I even used to believe it. Further research found me unable to understand how one gets there from the facts, so I reconsidered my opinion on the subject.
So when you run for office we'll all say "We knew him and he was a flip-flopper.".
Quote from: AquaMan on December 01, 2011, 11:46:40 AM
Whatever you do, don't engage these folks or purposely lead them into discussing the "facts". You might as well try to flip a Catholic. ;)
You mean like the fact that lawful gun owners use firearms over 2.5 million times a year to successfully defend themselves against violent crime where serious bodily injury or death is imminent. FBI statistics.
Gingrich: Poor kids don't work
QuoteAt a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa Thursday, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said children in poor neighborhoods have "no habits of working," no one around them works and they get cash illegally.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390203n#ixzz1fJk5c9hY
Quote from: Townsend on December 01, 2011, 02:36:37 PM
Gingrich: Poor kids don't work
LOL, many of those poor kids are showing their entrepreneurial spirit by selling drugs. Of course, their business is a felony, so it doesn't work out so well in the end. So yeah, it's just that they're lazy.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/01/143012054/ron-paul-blames-sex-obsessed-media-for-giving-gingrich-free-ride?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/01/143012054/ron-paul-blames-sex-obsessed-media-for-giving-gingrich-free-ride?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw)
Ron Paul Blames Sex-Obsessed Media For Giving Gingrich 'Free Ride'
QuoteRep. Ron Paul may not agree with Newt Gingrich on much these days but they see eye-to-eye on least one thing — it's the news media's fault.
Paul defended his fiery new anti-Gingrich ad as a much-needed corrective to what he viewed as the news media's obsession with allegations of sexual misbehavior by Herman Cain and an alleged corresponding lack of attention to the contradictions of Gingrich's policy record.
Gingrich, too, has made news media criticism a part of nearly every one of his debate performances. So he and Paul clearly have some bones to pick with journalists. But that's about where their agreement ends.
On Thursday, standing in the produce section of a New Hampshire grocery store, Paul told reporters:
"I think that he's getting a free ride. And I've worked with him for a long time. And I think the points I made on the various issues, he's a flip-flopper, so he can hardly be the alternative to Mitt Romney.
"What I find is a shame is look at the amount of energy the media put into talking about sex. And how much energy does the media put into exposing what a Newt Gingrich believes and what he's done?
"So I feel like it should have been the media's job to do a little bit of that because they spent all this money and energy, I mean 90 percent of the news has been on Herman Cain. Not that doesn't deserve some reporting and people don't deserve to know about that.
"But I think the emphasis is way out of whack and that's why we put out ad on the Internet."
One irony of Paul's complaint: his ad is filled with video or text produced by news outlets that have examined Gingrich's post-speakership activities
Quote from: Townsend on December 01, 2011, 03:18:49 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/01/143012054/ron-paul-blames-sex-obsessed-media-for-giving-gingrich-free-ride?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/01/143012054/ron-paul-blames-sex-obsessed-media-for-giving-gingrich-free-ride?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw)
Ron Paul Blames Sex-Obsessed Media For Giving Gingrich 'Free Ride'
....aaaand the next target has been selected!
Quote from: Hoss on December 01, 2011, 03:24:34 PM
....aaaand the next target has been selected!
These freakin' guys...might as well call them the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot 2.
Quote from: Townsend on December 01, 2011, 01:42:22 PM
So when you run for office we'll all say "We knew him and he was a flip-flopper.".
I wanna be a flip flopper too!
(Is that anything like being a Pepper, too? But I don't want to be part of an original crowd... ah, the dilemma of it all.) Maybe I could just be a werewolf...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvCTaccEkMI
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/12/01/newt-surges-in-new-poll.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/12/01/newt-surges-in-new-poll.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Newt Surges in New Poll
QuoteWatch out,Mitt. A new Rasmussen poll has Newt Gingrich surging to sizeable lead over Mitt Romney, 38 percent to 17 percent. Support seems to be draining from Rick Perry and Herman Cain, who come in with 4 percent and 8 percent, respectively. In a match-up with President Obama, Gingrich has a slight lead, 45 percent to 43 percent. In that scenario, the Rasmussen poll is a bit of an outlier, with a Real Clear Politics composite of seven major polls showing Gingrich trailing Obama by nearly six points.
You know it's gonna get stranger, some things we just know!
"He said that if Pelosi released anything, it would show "what a tainted, political ethics operation Nancy Pelosi is engaged in," and said the House should condemn her if she uses material." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69805.html
What a hilarious candidate....from an even funnier political potty....
Sent him a check today....Go Newt! You will make it a Landslide:
Rasmussen polls are tilted toward anyone Republican. And this morning Joe Scarborough, a complete Right Wing Conservative Chicken Hawk was talking bad about Newt. And He worked with him in the House.
So I am still on board with Huntsman. He is the only one who makes sense plus his foreign diplomat experience. He has lived in China.
Quote from: joiei on December 06, 2011, 09:16:27 AM
Rasmussen polls are tilted toward anyone Republican. And this morning Joe Scarborough, a complete Right Wing Conservative Chicken Hawk was talking bad about Newt. And He worked with him in the House.
So I am still on board with Huntsman. He is the only one who makes sense plus his foreign diplomat experience. He has lived in China.
Way to creepy. Far too moderate.
We don't need no stinkin' common sense! We don't need no experienced moderate types who see both sides and look for solutions. We need NEWT!! :P
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 09:29:36 AM
We don't need no stinkin' common sense! We don't need no experienced moderate types who see both sides and look for solutions. We need NEWT!! :P
No, we just don't need Huntsman. He is not viable as a candidate against President Obama.
The most important thing in this election is to beat President Obama, and beyond that reverse the policies, and practices that have caused the stagnation, and in many cases progression of economic recovery. Huntsman will not do that.
We have an Ineptocratic leader with no chance or ability to effectively lead this country. We do not need another one.
You're always amusing. Even when you're serious.
So, the goal is chaos. Did I see you in one of those OWS pics Guido has been posting? Was that you with your bum on the police car?
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 09:50:48 AM
You're always amusing. Even when you're serious.
So, the goal is chaos. Did I see you in one of those OWS pics Guido has been posting? Was that you with your bum on the police car?
You are not making a lick of sense.
The goal is economic recovery. That can only be accomplished through ending the era of uncertainty, and the policies that caused and are perpetuating it.
Very simple, but if economic recover represents chaos to you, then so be it.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2011, 10:00:33 AM
You are not making a lick of sense.
The goal is economic recovery. That can only be accomplished through ending the era of uncertainty, and the policies that caused and are perpetuating it.
Very simple, but if economic recover represents chaos to you, then so be it.
Nice restate. You're goal is to remove Obama. You aren't really republican, but your libertarian leaders just aren't palatable to the general public so you bond to the next closest thing, WINNING!
The economy was in trouble long before O came in, and will be slowly improving for another few years till we get a grasp on what actually happened, what the reasonable solutions are, and how to sell them. Unless of course you chaos types succeed in selling your donkey as a thoroughbred.
Gaspar...do you really think Gingrinch can beat Obama?
Read this column by Michael Bates...the column is really urging Tom Coburn to run, but I think he speaks what many conservatives think about The Newt.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2011/12/run-tom-coburn-run.html
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 10:09:47 AM
Nice restate. You're goal is to remove Obama. You aren't really republican, but your libertarian leaders just aren't palatable to the general public so you bond to the next closest thing, WINNING!
That is basically correct. It's not the WHO that is important at this point. It is the WHAT.
The economy was going through a cyclical recession compounded by the housing bubble. There was/is no need for recovery to take a decade. The singular thing that liberals try, but cannot ignore is the fact that the business climate faces uncertainty, and that uncertainty is a result of policies (mostly the healthcare bill) that make financial forecasting impossible. Secondary to that there is no platform aside from the mantra of "take from the rich" that President Obama is touting. There is no private sector jobs plan, or vision offered. There is only the continued reverence for regulation and re-distribution.
So, again, I say you are indeed correct. The candidate (whoever he or she is) must be able to eliminate the negative economic factors that are stagnating our economy. I could care less who they f*^&, or how much they spend on gifts for their wife, or what color underwear they have on.
The only unfortunate thing is that we will now have to listen to another decade of defending President
Carter Obama as a great President, until sometime in 2024 when liberals will finally admit that he was nothing more than a cult of personality. Gawd! Today they have announced his new campaign theme for 2012. Not Hope & Change, certainly not Opportunity. . .it's "Fairness." I wish that was a joke, but it's not. That is what we have come to with this man.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2011, 10:29:21 AM
President Carter Obama
That must be the new rallying cry. I've noticed it regurged lately.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 06, 2011, 10:22:10 AM
Gaspar...do you really think Gingrinch can beat Obama?
Read this column by Michael Bates...the column is really urging Tom Coburn to run, but I think he speaks what many conservatives think about The Newt.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2011/12/run-tom-coburn-run.html
I read Michael's column yesterday. Very good. I don't know who will beat Obama yet. I really liked Cain, but that didn't pan out well. Whoever the candidate is, beating President Obama is no longer just a political goal, it's a necessity.
Per Batesline...
"Newt Gingrich is the leading anti-Romney of the moment. Gingrich has serious character problems, of which his serial polygyny is a mere symptom. (Isn't it ironic that the Mormon in the race, not the Baptist-turned-Cathoic, is the husband of one wife?) As you documented in your book Breach of Trust (and Bob Novak in his autobiography), Gingrich's character flaws extended to his leadership of the House of Representatives. For all his brilliance in the 1994 campaign to retake the House, his failures as speaker turned the Republican caucus from principled reform to careerism for the sake of power, laying the groundwork for the moral collapse of the Republican majority, the Pelosi speakership, the Obama presidency, and our current fiscal crisis.
Beyond his failures as a husband and as a congressional leader, Gingrich is a big-government conservative in an era where government must shrink to make space for private sector can grow. Being a visionary is a fine thing in the private sector, but as a self-proclaimed "Teddy Roosevelt Republican," Newt offers big ideas that depend upon massive government investment and intervention."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 06, 2011, 10:37:42 AM
Per Batesline...
"Newt Gingrich is the leading anti-Romney of the moment. Gingrich has serious character problems, of which his serial polygyny is a mere symptom. (Isn't it ironic that the Mormon in the race, not the Baptist-turned-Cathoic, is the husband of one wife?) As you documented in your book Breach of Trust (and Bob Novak in his autobiography), Gingrich's character flaws extended to his leadership of the House of Representatives. For all his brilliance in the 1994 campaign to retake the House, his failures as speaker turned the Republican caucus from principled reform to careerism for the sake of power, laying the groundwork for the moral collapse of the Republican majority, the Pelosi speakership, the Obama presidency, and our current fiscal crisis.
Beyond his failures as a husband and as a congressional leader, Gingrich is a big-government conservative in an era where government must shrink to make space for private sector can grow. Being a visionary is a fine thing in the private sector, but as a self-proclaimed "Teddy Roosevelt Republican," Newt offers big ideas that depend upon massive government investment and intervention."
And on the other hand we have Romney who changes opinions on a whim. No candidate is ideal, but the job at hand is the economy, and it's not a particularly difficult one. Businesses are poised at the starting line waiting for the gunshot. They have capital, they have demand, they are simply being held back by uncertainty and the promise of increasing cost of production.
You could do it, I could do it, anyone could do it. President Obama won't do it because it would require the admission of failure.
I don't believe you. If businesses have the demand, they will fill it or their competition will.
For every businessman you can claim is holding back until we get another President, I can show you a mirror that shows they are missing opportunity.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 06, 2011, 10:37:42 AM
Per Batesline...
"Newt Gingrich is the leading anti-Romney of the moment. Gingrich has serious character problems, of which his serial polygyny is a mere symptom. (Isn't it ironic that the Mormon in the race, not the Baptist-turned-Cathoic, is the husband of one wife?) As you documented in your book Breach of Trust (and Bob Novak in his autobiography), Gingrich's character flaws extended to his leadership of the House of Representatives. For all his brilliance in the 1994 campaign to retake the House, his failures as speaker turned the Republican caucus from principled reform to careerism for the sake of power, laying the groundwork for the moral collapse of the Republican majority, the Pelosi speakership, the Obama presidency, and our current fiscal crisis.
Beyond his failures as a husband and as a congressional leader, Gingrich is a big-government conservative in an era where government must shrink to make space for private sector can grow. Being a visionary is a fine thing in the private sector, but as a self-proclaimed "Teddy Roosevelt Republican," Newt offers big ideas that depend upon massive government investment and intervention."
It sounds to me that Newt is someone the left and middle left could hold their nose and vote for, even more than the right. Divorced a few times (I don't think he was actually married to more than one at the same time), not a Baptist anymore, character flaws, careerism for the sake of power, big-government. What's not to like beyond the "R" behind his name?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 06, 2011, 10:52:43 AM
I don't believe you. If businesses have the demand, they will fill it or their competition will.
For every businessman you can claim is holding back until we get another President, I can show you a mirror that shows they are missing opportunity.
If the demand is for a $10.00 widget and you don't know if you can get it to market for $9.00 or $11.00, you wait. I obviously made up these numbers for the example but the principle is there.
Gas your ruminations are dreamlike. You must be aware that your business analyses are not shared by the majority of business school grads. Mainly because they are framed by your political structure of thinking. You don't necessarily want what's best for the country, you want whats best for your political outlook. Therefore, you would vote for Satan's son as long as he followed your mantra of trickle down and feed the rich. That is why your party is going through such throes of agony over selecting a leader because your only goal is winning, not taking responsibility for past errors and leading the country out of its doldrums. Run Charlie Sheen for heaven's sake.
Let's take a for instance. Where does Gingrich stand on the Healthcare act (sorry for you cultists, "Obamacare")? Good luck with that. He's been all over the place with its primary features. Your assumption that the business world is holding its breath waiting for its repeal is part of accepted internet dogma. But when I spoke with family members who work for the country's largest health insurer this past holiday guess what? They are scared to death that the work they've spent the last five years preparing for this inevitable change in the way insurance works, will be blown away by ideological Republicans looking to get elected. I was told they have lobbyists frantically working in Washington to make sure these are just electioneering ploys, but they deeply fear they will be knee-capped by the Repubs.
Yes, anecdotal. Put enough anecdotes together and you have a novel.
Look. This is a guy who has been married three times, divorced twice and changed his religion to Catholicism. He cannot commit to anything for very long. He is an agent for paralysis in government. Taught others how to do it.
He is chaos.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
Gas your ruminations are dreamlike. You must be aware that your business analyses are not shared by the majority of business school grads. Mainly because they are framed by your political structure of thinking. You don't necessarily want what's best for the country, you want whats best for your political outlook. Therefore, you would vote for Satan's son as long as he followed your mantra of trickle down and feed the rich. That is why your party is going through such throes of agony over selecting a leader because your only goal is winning, not taking responsibility for past errors and leading the country out of its doldrums. Run Charlie Sheen for heaven's sake.
Let's take a for instance. Where does Gingrich stand on the Healthcare act (sorry for you cultists, "Obamacare")? Good luck with that. He's been all over the place with its primary features. Your assumption that the business world is holding its breath waiting for its repeal is part of accepted internet dogma. But when I spoke with family members who work for the country's largest health insurer this past holiday guess what? They are scared to death that the work they've spent the last five years preparing for this inevitable change in the way insurance works, will be blown away by ideological Republicans looking to get elected. I was told they have lobbyists frantically working in Washington to make sure these are just electioneering ploys, but they deeply fear they will be knee-capped by the Repubs.
Yes, anecdotal. Put enough anecdotes together and you have a novel.
Look. This is a guy who has been married three times, divorced twice and changed his religion to Catholicism. He cannot commit to anything for very long. He is an agent for paralysis in government. Taught others how to do it.
He is chaos.
Really? Your values and associations haven't evolved over the years? Show me one adult in their 50's or 60's who haven't evolved through relationships, religious, political, or professional affiliations. Do you refer to every other breathing adult as "chaos"?
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
Gas your ruminations are dreamlike. You must be aware that your business analyses are not shared by the majority of business school grads.
The ones who have run this county into the ground with short-sighted goals that ignore long term stability?
Switching mantras:
Quote
Mainly because they are framed by your political structure of thinking. You don't necessarily want what's best for the country, you want whats best for your political outlook. Therefore, you would vote for Satan's son as long as he followed your mantra of government can solve everything. That is why your party is should be going through such throes of agony over selecting a an effective leader because your only goal is winning, not taking responsibility for present and past (Great Society...) errors and leading the country out of its doldrums and dependency of its constituents.
Let's take a for instance. Where does Gingrich stand on the Healthcare act (sorry for you cultists, "Obamacare")? Good luck with that. He's been all over the place with its primary features. Your assumption that the business world is holding its breath waiting for its repeal is part of accepted internet dogma. But when I spoke with family members who work for the country's largest health insurer this past holiday guess what? They are scared to death that the work they've spent the last five years preparing for this inevitable change in the way insurance works, will be blown away by ideological Republicans looking to get elected.
Regardless of whether it would be good for the average citizen in the long run.
QuoteI was told they have lobbyists frantically working in Washington to make sure these are just electioneering ploys, but they deeply fear they will be knee-capped by the Repubs for their bottom line.
Keep in mind that I am not a big fan of Newt but I see him as a better alternative to Obama.
http://news.yahoo.com/promises-promises-securing-us-border-impossible-071019604.html (http://news.yahoo.com/promises-promises-securing-us-border-impossible-071019604.html)
QuoteCampaigning in Iowa last week, Gingrich signed a pledge to build a fence stretching the length of the border by the end of 2013. That may help him recover from a recent statement that illegal immigrants who have been established in the U.S. for many years should be allowed to remain in the country — a position his opponents have likened to amnesty.
Is that his "sure, I'll sign it, whatever..." technique to winning?
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2011, 11:37:52 AM
Quote
Campaigning in Iowa last week, Gingrich signed a pledge to build a fence stretching the length of the border by the end of 2013. That may help him recover from a recent statement that illegal immigrants who have been established in the U.S. for many years should be allowed to remain in the country — a position his opponents have likened to amnesty.
Quote
Is that his "sure, I'll sign it, whatever..." technique to winning?
That's his fence to keep them in the USA. :D
It is pretty humorous to see the conservatives on this site use the same rationale for supporting Gingrich that I and other Democrats have used in the past to explain our candidates apparent softness with little success. Things like, "personal indiscretions are not important to job performance", "people change their views over time as they mature". Why not use that rationale on Romney? Surely he has learned how the Massachusetts healthcare plan was ill conceived. Romney has changed his views on many things yet he gets no pass.
Makes one wonder if there isn't something else going on with the sudden conversion to the (Its A Wonderful Life) Potter lookalike.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
Gas your ruminations are dreamlike. You must be aware that your business analyses are not shared by the majority of business school grads.
I suppose most of my clients are not business school grads.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 11:50:31 AM
It is pretty humorous to see the conservatives on this site use the same rationale for supporting Gingrich that I and other Democrats have used in the past to explain our candidates apparent softness with little success. Things like, "personal indiscretions are not important to job performance", "people change their views over time as they mature". Why not use that rationale on Romney? Surely he has learned how the Massachusetts healthcare plan was ill conceived. Romney has changed his views on many things yet he gets no pass.
Makes one wonder if there isn't something else going on with the sudden conversion to the (Its A Wonderful Life) Potter lookalike.
In my case, I'm just having some fun throwing it back at ya. I've remember hearing that
crap stuff since the 60s. Sounds really silly when the other side says it, doesn't it?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2011, 12:00:36 PM
I suppose most of my clients are not business school grads.
Only if you are lucky.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 11:31:24 AM
The ones who have run this county into the ground with short-sighted goals that ignore long term stability?
That would be the Harvard School of Business in concert with the Republicontin party for the last 30 years.
Guys. Remember where you are. This is not reality. This is Tulsa. The LED red capitol of an LED red state.
Not likely you'll find many clients around here who haven't filtered their business education through their political coffee makers.
Best example lately I've seen comes from a metal building businessman over in West Tulsa who uses his brand new LED sign to advertise anti-Obama sentiments because its visible from I-75. "REPEAL OBAMACARE" etc. Never mind that its a waste of his investment, a chance to alienate potential customers and a wasted opportunity to, what, maybe sell Metal Buildings??!
Probably one of your clients. ;)
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 12:08:28 PM
In my case, I'm just having some fun throwing it back at ya. I've remember hearing that crap stuff since the 60s. Sounds really silly when the other side says it, doesn't it?
Yes. Sounds silly when any side says it.
FWIW most all of my politics, morality and intellect is pretty much intact from that period of time. Yeah, some things have become clearer, some things calcified and other things just plain unavailable to me intellectually or physically. But unlike Newt, the older I get the less sure I am of anything.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 06, 2011, 12:26:17 PM
That would be the Harvard School of Business in concert with the Republicontin party for the last 30 years.
They didn't need any help.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 12:45:17 PM
FWIW most all of my politics, morality and intellect is pretty much intact from that period of time.
Gee, I'm sorry to hear that. (Just kidding, mostly.) ;D
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 12:41:10 PM
Guys. Remember where you are. This is not reality. This is Tulsa. The LED red capitol of an LED red state.
Not likely you'll find many clients around here who haven't filtered their business education through their political coffee makers.
Best example lately I've seen comes from a metal building businessman over in West Tulsa who uses his brand new LED sign to advertise anti-Obama sentiments because its visible from I-75. "REPEAL OBAMACARE" etc. Never mind that its a waste of his investment, a chance to alienate potential customers and a wasted opportunity to, what, maybe sell Metal Buildings??!
Probably one of your clients. ;)
Will have to drive by there sometime. Is this the one just south of where I-44 splits to head east? (MBI)
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 12:41:10 PM
Guys. Remember where you are. This is not reality. This is Tulsa Anytown USA. The LED red/blue capitol of an LED red/blue state.
Not likely you'll find many clients around here who haven't filtered their business education through their political coffee makers.
This is probably true pretty much anywhere.
QuoteBest example lately I've seen comes from a metal building businessman over in West Tulsa who uses his brand new LED sign to advertise anti-Obama sentiments because it's visible from I-75 US 75. "REPEAL OBAMACARE" etc. Never mind that its a waste of his investment, a chance to alienate potential customers and a wasted opportunity to, what, maybe sell Metal Buildings??!
If what you are trying to say about OK is/were true, then I would agree that it is a waste of money in that everyone (except you and and a few others) already feels that way. It will probably not alienate potential customers and may in fact attract some in a feeling of brotherhood.
It's a possibility.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 01:02:24 PM
This is probably true pretty much anywhere.
If what you are trying to say about OK is/were true, then I would agree that it is a waste of money in that everyone (except you and and a few others) already feels that way. It will probably not alienate potential customers and may in fact attract some in a feeling of brotherhood.
It's a possibility.
No doubt he will gain some from it. After all, this IS Okrahoma...
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 01:02:24 PM
This is probably true pretty much anywhere.
If what you are trying to say about OK is/were true, then I would agree that it is a waste of money in that everyone (except you and and a few others) already feels that way. It will probably not alienate potential customers and may in fact attract some in a feeling of brotherhood.
It's a possibility.
Hey! Make your own quotes! Mine are perfect just the way they are!
Its possible that Newt may change his religion to Church of Latter Day Saints if he sees Romney closing the gap. Possible, maybe even likely.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 06, 2011, 12:56:49 PM
Will have to drive by there sometime. Is this the one just south of where I-44 splits to head east? (MBI)
I don't want to give the guy any more attention than he deserves. Seems his place is just north of the entrance to 75 off of 41st, next to a truck repair center.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 06, 2011, 01:03:58 PM
No doubt he will gain some from it. After all, this IS Okrahoma...
Hey, no disparaging remarks about Okra (the veggie) or I will start bad mouthing asparagus.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 01:09:40 PM
Mine are perfect just the way they are!
We obviously disagree on their perfection. You did have a good start though. It just needed a little expanding.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 06, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
I don't want to give the guy any more attention than he deserves.
Too late.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 06, 2011, 12:26:17 PM
That would be the Harvard School of Business in concert with the Republicontin party for the last 30 years.
Don't knock Harvard. At least back in the 60s, it wasn't teaching dogma. Good thing, as one of the all around better people I know is a Harvard grad. Maybe they changed the curriculum to emphasize short-sighted idiocy in the 70s and 80s.
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Don't knock Harvard. At least back in the 60s, it wasn't teaching dogma. Good thing, as one of the all around better people I know is a Harvard grad. Maybe they changed the curriculum to emphasize short-sighted idiocy in the 70s and 80s.
This person may be an anomaly. Learned the correct way to do things in spite of the profs. Regurgitate what's needed to get the grades and then move on. Or, there may have been a curriculum change somewhere along the line but I would suspect it to have occurred before the 60s since that group is too recently retired or is getting ready to retire. I expect they are not all 1% enough to have retired at a really young age.
A tweet I read today:
"My cell phone must be dying — Newt Gingrich just asked it for a divorce."
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 01:13:30 PM
Hey, no disparaging remarks about Okra (the veggie) or I will start bad mouthing asparagus.
Now, this is a classic example of what is horribly wrong with text in that there is no inflection. No disparaging at all about okra (or the state), I love okra in just about every way it can be cooked. And asparagus I like ok, but not as well.
Oh, wait...I guess I should have used another name. Problem is, Heironymous P. Okra just doesn't roll of the tongue the same way. And when used for trade magazine subscriptions, it is always amusing to listen to the phone solicitors trying to say the name when they call to try to get you to buy something...
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/A/N/4/Newt-Deja-Vu.jpg)
I likey!
When Chris Farley met Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich's front-runner status in the race for the Republican presidential nomination has inspired a surge of interest in the late Chris Farley's impression of the former Speaker of the House.
Farley, who died in 1997, was well known for parodying Gingrich on "Saturday Night Live." In one memorable instance, Farley stormed into the House Republican Conference to celebrate the first 100 days of the Republican-controlled Congress. Farley (sporting a gray wig) shook hands with Newt and then proceeded to talk about some of his favorite books, including one by romance novelist Danielle Steele. To his credit, Gingrich himself was laughing as hard as anybody.
You can check out the video above. And keep your eyes peeled for a young John Boehner in the beginning of the clip.
I'm seeing a lot of chatter about how the GOP establishment is coming out almost unanimously against Newt's candidacy. You get that mostly in the form of the "thought leaders"/columnists/media personalities on the right just railing and railing against him in as many public forums as they can.
That sets up a pretty interesting dynamic where the GOP generally splits down the center between the unimpressive establishment candidate and the grass roots choice with (huge) historical liabilities. I've seen a lot of suggestions about a brokered convention, which may or may not happen but which at least sounds plausible as the two sides get farther apart. In either case, it's hard to see a situation where, should Romney get the nod, the party unites behind him. It's starting to seem similarly plausible that a Newt candidacy would have the same problems.
Here's what I haven't been able to figure out: why hasn't one of the GOP stars that're sitting on the sidelines come running to the rescue? The field has proven itself to be amazingly weak, and Romney can't seem to crack 20% support amongst the faithful. You'd think that this would be a great time for a Christie or a Daniels or Paul Ryan or anyone with some star power to come charging in. But they're all silent. Where are the viable GOP candidates?
Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2011, 10:40:29 AM
Where are the viable GOP candidates?
Maybe waiting for 2016.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2011, 10:58:36 AM
Maybe waiting for 2016.
Which means that, for all intents and purposes, the GOP has ceded the Whitehouse to Obama in 2012?
Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2011, 11:11:55 AM
Which means that, for all intents and purposes, the GOP has ceded the Whitehouse to Obama in 2012?
Not necessarily. Even the far right would probably vote for Romney rather than not vote and give the WH back to Obama. Romney can probably pull some center and somewhat conservative Democrat votes. Newt has obvious baggage but if he can overcome that, he could possibly beat Obama. There may be a lot of nose holding, as has been noted on this forum, and then vote to defeat Obama more than vote for the R candidate. I have voted for the R to keep the D from winning more than once as I am sure that many Ds have voted D just to defeat the R. It's US politics.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2011, 11:20:52 AM
Not necessarily. Even the far right would probably vote for Romney rather than not vote and give the WH back to Obama. Romney can probably pull some center and somewhat conservative Democrat votes. Newt has obvious baggage but if he can overcome that, he could possibly beat Obama. There may be a lot of nose holding, as has been noted on this forum, and then vote to defeat Obama more than vote for the R candidate. I have voted for the R to keep the D from winning more than once as I am sure that many Ds have voted D just to defeat the R. It's US politics.
Spoken like a true confirmed partisan. In reality, the general electorate is just not that passionate. They don't vote D just to defeat R or vice versa. They don't have time or patience for discussing politics around the coffee pot. In fact they don't even keep up with the issues at all. Mostly if its that kind of race they just don't vote.
For instance, I asked my co-worker who has some college, is in her late 50's and fundamentalist in religion just who is the current VP? Name one state senator? How do you feel about the republican candidates? Did you vote in the last presidential election? Are you strongly pro life?
Answers: don't know, don't know, don't know, no, of course.
Her answers weren't too different from the last couple of workplaces I've had to endure. They are hourly paid folks.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 10, 2011, 01:18:40 PM
Spoken like a true confirmed partisan. In reality, the general electorate is just not that passionate. They don't vote D just to defeat R or vice versa. They don't have time or patience for discussing politics around the coffee pot. In fact they don't even keep up with the issues at all. Mostly if its that kind of race they just don't vote.
Please explain the 2008 and 2010 general election. 2008 was more about getting rid of Republicans than any specific path that Obama proposed. 2010 the TEA party rallied some of the center, frequently with specific proposals, to vote the rascals out. FWIW, I view you (and a few others) as confirmed partisans. I am decidedly not a member of the Democratic Party but would leave out your words "true confirmed". I have never checked the straight ticket although I have frequently voted for all the Republican candidates with individual vote marks. I think the straight ticket option should be eliminated. I accept that you (as a partisan) cannot possibly understand how I would truly disagree with the democratic party candidates. My disagreement is frequently not at the most general goal level but more likely how to achieve that goal.
QuoteFor instance, I asked my co-worker who has some college, is in her late 50's and fundamentalist in religion just who is the current VP? Name one state senator? How do you feel about the republican candidates? Did you vote in the last presidential election? Are you strongly pro life?
Answers: don't know, don't know, don't know, no, of course.
You can find stupid people on both sides. There are plenty of U Tube videos to support that. Fundamentalist religious views of any of the religions are trouble in my view.
Quote
Her answers weren't too different from the last couple of workplaces I've had to endure. They are hourly paid folks.
So you are saying that all highly educated, salary exempt workers must by their education and position belong to the Democratic Party and have liberal values? Sounds kind of arrogant to me. I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be the party of the worker bees. Only the rich and powerful have conservative beliefs and belong to the party of the rich.
You really have it bad this election cycle Red.
According to you, 2008 was more about getting rid of Republicans. According to you. That is not my memory. It was economics and age that were the prime issues. It was also about that change thing.
According to you 2010 the TEA party rallied some of the center. According to you. Not a center I ever recognized.
According to you I am a partisan but you are not. According to you. Yet, I judged you by your remarks, not your voting habits.
According to you I cannot understand your viewpoints though that doesnt' square with any of my past remarks. I am disappointed that you haven't been comprehending my posts.
Look, I am making a simple point that comes from a new perspective for me. I have always worked in office workplaces filled with salaried employees who were well educated, pretty well informed and opinionated. Now, the last decade, because of the oft quoted lazy, liberal, slacker mentality I possess, (can't be because I was born 6 decades ago ;)) I have been forced to work with the mainstream of the population. The people who make things work for everyone else. Hourly workers who often work two or more jobs to keep up. It is shocking how little they know and how unpassionate they are about anything political. They can be mobilized, as Obama did in 2008, but it is more about accessing young peoples mentality, culture and communication channels than it was about what he had to say. Yet what he had to say also appealed to many who felt they had been recently screwed by a decade of Republican leadership.
Don't you ever watch Leno's man on the street interviews? I used to think they were actors. Nobody could be that poorly informed and stupid. They aren't actors. They are representative of a huge majority of this country. And they don't vote just to replace a D with an R.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2011, 11:20:52 AM
Newt has obvious baggage but if he can overcome that, he could possibly beat Obama.
Being the only speaker of the house ever convicted on ethics charges when the vote was 395-28 ought to end it right there, but apparently we've decided as a country that we don't care.
wevsus, it's too late for a new entrant to stand a good chance of winning, as the filing deadlines have already passed in several states.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 10, 2011, 03:40:45 PM
According to you, 2008 was more about getting rid of Republicans. According to you. That is not my memory. It was economics and age that were the prime issues. It was also about that change thing.
Hope & Change - Hope to change everything the Republican Party
supposedly stood for. The economics Obama and the Hope and Change platform promoted were very pointedly about Republicans starving granny and oppressing the poor. We will just have to disagree.
QuoteAccording to you 2010 the TEA party rallied some of the center. According to you. Not a center I ever recognized.
Are you that far left? Out there with Wevsus? Except in a few places, Republicans cannot win without gathering votes from the center.
QuoteAccording to you I am a partisan but you are not. According to you. Yet, I judged you by your remarks, not your voting habits.
I merely wanted to drop "true confirmed". I obviously prefer the Republican positions over the Liberal, Democratic Party positions just as your comments place you squarely in the Liberal, Democratic Party camp. The only reason I mentioned straight ticket voting was because I have looked at some Democratic Party candidates. Occasionally I even vote for them. There are plenty of true confirmed partisans that could not vote for the other side if their own candidate was Hugo Chavez.
QuoteAccording to you I cannot understand your viewpoints though that doesnt' square with any of my past remarks. I am disappointed that you haven't been comprehending my posts.
Actually, I said you don't understand how I could disagree with the Democratic Party candidates, not that you didn't understand my viewpoints. Please read more carefully.
QuoteLook, I am making a simple point that comes from a new perspective for me. I have always worked in office workplaces filled with salaried employees who were well educated, pretty well informed and opinionated. Now, the last decade, because of the oft quoted lazy, liberal, slacker mentality I possess, (can't be because I was born 6 decades ago ;)) I have been forced to work with the mainstream of the population. The people who make things work for everyone else. Hourly workers who often work two or more jobs to keep up. It is shocking how little they know and how unpassionate they are about anything political. They can be mobilized, as Obama did in 2008, but it is more about accessing young peoples mentality, culture and communication channels than it was about what he had to say. Yet what he had to say also appealed to many who felt they had been recently screwed by a decade of Republican leadership.
You know that we are about the same age so I don't think that is a factor. I too have worked mostly with educated people. Even as an enlisted guy in the Navy, most of my direct coworkers were technicians and not just swab jockies. During my engineering career, I have been fortunate enough to have worked directly with factory floor workers to both implement my designs and receive valuable feedback. My interface rarely involved politics. I don't know if they just weren't interested or not. It wasn't important to getting our jobs done.
Quote
Don't you ever watch Leno's man on the street interviews? I used to think they were actors. Nobody could be that poorly informed and stupid. They aren't actors. They are representative of a huge majority of this country. And they don't vote just to replace a D with an R.
Don't watch Leno. I did for a little after he took over from Johnny Carson but just didn't care for him that much. I gravitated toward Letterman for quite a while, even with his liberal bias. I quit watching when he mixed too much venomous political comment with his show in 2008. I haven't watched him since. I do appreciate Jay's car collection though.
Quote from: nathanm on December 10, 2011, 04:16:41 PM
Being the only speaker of the house ever convicted on one ethics charges out of either 83 or 84 when the vote was 395-28 ought to end it right there, but apparently we've decided as a country that we don't care.
wevsus, it's too late for a new entrant to stand a good chance of winning, as the filing deadlines have already passed in several states.
We as a country have forgiven politicians for a lot more than we would ordinary citizens.
Why does the filing deadline need to be nearly a year before the election?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2011, 04:49:40 PM
Why does the filing deadline need to be nearly a year before the election?
For the primaries, which start in a month.
My point in bringing up the ethics charges is that Newt has been trying to spin it as somehow partisan when only 28 of his fellow Republicans voted to acquit, which is clearly not true.
Quote from: nathanm on December 10, 2011, 04:50:49 PM
For the primaries, which start in a month.
Not all of them.
I would agree though that if you want to run for Prez of the USA, you should know by now.
Red, we'll have more substantive conversations after the election is over. Right now we're not communicating.
Gingrich Is Inspiring—and Disturbing
The first potential president about whom there is too much information.
By PEGGY NOONAN
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Quote from: AquaMan on December 10, 2011, 03:40:45 PM
You really have it bad this election cycle Red.
According to you, 2008 was more about getting rid of Republicans. According to you. That is not my memory. It was economics and age that were the prime issues. It was also about that change thing.
According to you 2010 the TEA party rallied some of the center. According to you. Not a center I ever recognized.
According to you I am a partisan but you are not. According to you. Yet, I judged you by your remarks, not your voting habits.
According to you I cannot understand your viewpoints though that doesnt' square with any of my past remarks. I am disappointed that you haven't been comprehending my posts.
Look, I am making a simple point that comes from a new perspective for me. I have always worked in office workplaces filled with salaried employees who were well educated, pretty well informed and opinionated. Now, the last decade, because of the oft quoted lazy, liberal, slacker mentality I possess, (can't be because I was born 6 decades ago ;)) I have been forced to work with the mainstream of the population. The people who make things work for everyone else. Hourly workers who often work two or more jobs to keep up. It is shocking how little they know and how unpassionate they are about anything political. They can be mobilized, as Obama did in 2008, but it is more about accessing young peoples mentality, culture and communication channels than it was about what he had to say. Yet what he had to say also appealed to many who felt they had been recently screwed by a decade of Republican leadership.
Don't you ever watch Leno's man on the street interviews? I used to think they were actors. Nobody could be that poorly informed and stupid. They aren't actors. They are representative of a huge majority of this country. And they don't vote just to replace a D with an R.
Epithets like "McSame" aren't ringing a bell? A McCain win was successfully painted as being a third Bush term.
Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2011, 10:40:29 AM
I'm seeing a lot of chatter about how the GOP establishment is coming out almost unanimously against Newt's candidacy. You get that mostly in the form of the "thought leaders"/columnists/media personalities on the right just railing and railing against him in as many public forums as they can.
That sets up a pretty interesting dynamic where the GOP generally splits down the center between the unimpressive establishment candidate and the grass roots choice with (huge) historical liabilities. I've seen a lot of suggestions about a brokered convention, which may or may not happen but which at least sounds plausible as the two sides get farther apart. In either case, it's hard to see a situation where, should Romney get the nod, the party unites behind him. It's starting to seem similarly plausible that a Newt candidacy would have the same problems.
Here's what I haven't been able to figure out: why hasn't one of the GOP stars that're sitting on the sidelines come running to the rescue? The field has proven itself to be amazingly weak, and Romney can't seem to crack 20% support amongst the faithful. You'd think that this would be a great time for a Christie or a Daniels or Paul Ryan or anyone with some star power to come charging in. But they're all silent. Where are the viable GOP candidates?
I don't understand why you aren't a writer for one of the MSNBC commentators. You missed your calling.
As far as "star power"? Star power is how we wound up with someone with zero leadership skills. But he sure looks good and sounds good!
Quote from: Conan71 on December 11, 2011, 09:20:47 AM
Epithets like "McSame" aren't ringing a bell? A McCain win was successfully painted as being a third Bush term.
That was age and a general rebuke of anyone who had been perceived as participating in the economic collapse. McCain was unfairly characterized as having supported and represented those policies but so was anyone his age. And lots of folks on both sides of the aisle paid for those perceptions. His real failure was in campaigning. "Uhhh...that one....
Leadership is a subjective quality. I obviously think Obama led well during a difficult period of time and that he did so with entrenched opposition and impatient followers.
You know, leadership can be negative (Newt) which is less than zero if my math serves.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 10, 2011, 07:36:07 PM
Red, we'll have more substantive conversations after the election is over. Right now we're not communicating.
November is a long way off. I bet we don't wait until then. :D
Quote from: Conan71 on December 11, 2011, 09:24:20 AM
I don't understand why you aren't a writer for one of the MSNBC commentators. You missed your calling.
As far as "star power"? Star power is how we wound up with someone with zero leadership skills. But he sure looks good and sounds good!
Well geez, I appreciate that whole MSNBC thing. . . I think . . . .
I mean "star power" as in media friendly but also broadly respected within the GOP factions. They ARE out there. Christie is one. Rubio, young as he is, is another. Mitch Daniels is another. Even Ryan, who the left loathes, projects well on TV and is being heralded by all parts of the GOP as a major thought leader. All of these guys took a pass on 2012 and I can't figure out why. Romney has always been a weak contender, and the rest of the field has also always been weak (you only have to look at how many times one has been up -- and then down -- over the others to see how fluid the field has been). It's been a great opportunity for someone who is strong in personality and message to come in and sweep the field. And I still can't figure why those guys stayed on the sidelines this time around.
IMO, there're two reasons: 1) Obama still has a gajillion dollars behind and a campaign organization that is one of the best in history. If the GOP "slam dunk" guys wait till 2016 O will be gone for good and they can have an open field to fight against. 2) the GOP caucus itself is split in such a way that it may not be able to be bridge the two halves effectively, either during an election or during a possible administration, and the star power guys understood that sticking their hands into the shark tank such as it exists now would be nothing but painful.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 11, 2011, 10:10:35 AM
That was age and a general rebuke of anyone who had been perceived as participating in the economic collapse. McCain was unfairly characterized as having supported and represented those policies but so was anyone his age. And lots of folks on both sides of the aisle paid for those perceptions. His real failure was in campaigning. "Uhhh...that one....
Leadership is a subjective quality. I obviously think Obama led well during a difficult period of time and that he did so with entrenched opposition and impatient followers a massive majority in the House and a filibuster proof Senate.
You know, leadership can be negative (Newt) which is less than zero if my math serves.
FIFY
Quote from: guido911 on December 11, 2011, 12:07:00 PM
FIFY
Well, thanks, I think. Its good we have common ground. You could have just added that phrase and the sentence would have been even more accurate.
How are you feeling about Newt, btw? Do you believe he is the one?
Quote from: nathanm on December 10, 2011, 04:16:41 PM
Being the only speaker of the house ever convicted on ethics charges when the vote was 395-28 ought to end it right there, but apparently we've decided as a country that we don't care.
Not having a photographic memory, I decided to check up on which of the charges Newt was convicted.
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Ethics sanctions
Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000 on a 395-28 House vote.[66] Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". [67] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[68] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated[69] and left that issue up to the IRS.[70] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[71][72]
Leadership challenge
In the summer of 1997 several House Republicans, who saw Gingrich's public image as a liability, attempted to replace him as Speaker. The attempted "coup" began July 9 with a meeting of Republican conference chairman John Boehner of Ohio and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon of New York. According to their plan, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum: resign, or be voted out. However, Armey balked at the proposal to make Paxon the new Speaker, and told his chief of staff to warn Gingrich about the attempted coup.[73]
On July 11, Gingrich met with senior Republican leadership to assess the situation. He explained that under no circumstance would he step down. If he was voted out, there would be a new election for Speaker, which would allow for the possibility that Democrats—along with dissenting Republicans—would vote in Dick Gephardt as Speaker. On July 16, Paxon offered to resign his post, feeling that he had not handled the situation correctly, as the only member of the leadership who had been appointed to his position—by Gingrich—instead of elected.[74]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
Reference [74]:
Quote
In a case involving the ethics violations that led the House of Representatives to reprimand former Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997, the Internal Revenue Service has cleared a private foundation close to Mr. Gingrich of breaking tax laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/04/us/irs-clears-foundation-linked-to-gingrich-s-ethics-dispute.html
I saw another reference, which I can not verify but do find plausible, that Newt basically signed something prepared by his lawyers with an error in it. That cost him $300,000. His public image, earned or not, cost him the Speaker's chair and his seat in the house.
If you/we/I don't want Newt, let's reject him for real causes, not incomplete memories.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 11, 2011, 12:27:49 PM
Well, thanks, I think. Its good we have common ground. You could have just added that phrase and the sentence would have been even more accurate.
How are you feeling about Newt, btw? Do you believe he is the one?
Right now, I don't really care too much about an election nearly a year away. Trying to enjoy the CHRISTMAS season. :P
Quote from: we vs us on December 11, 2011, 10:54:51 AM
Well geez, I appreciate that whole MSNBC thing. . . I think . . . .
Even though we disagree on almost everything political, you do write well.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2011, 01:01:02 PM
If you/we/I don't want Newt, let's reject him for real causes, not incomplete memories.
Glad there is someone out there defending Newt. That gives the rest of us a chance to keep going.
Newt Gingrich was the most polarizing Congressman of the 1990s. Beyond that, he completely turned off his own party and they were willing to do anything to get rid of him. Remeber, the vote was 395 to 28. Many of the 28 who voted against were quoted saying they weren't happy with the dollar amount of his retribution.
The republicans were in charge of the house and still this was an unprecedented smack to Gingrich.
He was the first Speaker in the 208 year history of the House to be disciplined for ethical wrondoing. After he resigned as Speaker, Gingrich said of his fellow republicans, "I'm willing to lead, but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."
Senator Tom Coburn said this about Newt, "
He's the last person I'd vote for for president of the United States."
Who are the ones with incomplete memories?
Quote from: guido911 on December 11, 2011, 01:06:50 PM
Right now, I don't really care too much about an election nearly a year away. Trying to enjoy the CHRISTMAS season. :P
I'm such a backslider. Missed both parades, but did manage to buy a tree, get an eye examination, and get new I-phones for the family. And some vodka to go with the egg nog. ;)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 11, 2011, 02:20:02 PM
Glad there is someone out there defending Newt. That gives the rest of us a chance to keep going.
Keep going. Just go on legitimate gripes.
An interesting poll came out this weekend, pitting Romney and Gingrich against one another in some of the upcoming primary states. Romney's slipped a lot in some cases, and Gingrich is giving him a run for his money. I can't tell you whether that has to do with Gingrich's pluses or Romney's minuses, but either way it's looking like Gingrich at the very least be competitive.
Another interesting data point: as a snapshot of this slice of the election season, Obama beats both Romney and Gingrich in some pretty red states -- South Carolina and Florida. Obama beats the pants off of Gingrich, and edges Romney. Obviously it's way too far way to use this as gospel, but it does put an interesting spin on who might be more electable in the general vs the primary. This points towards the conventional wisdom. Romney would be the general candidate most likely to give Obama a good run; Gingrich is decidedly not that guy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
Quote from: we vs us on December 12, 2011, 09:00:10 AM
An interesting poll came out this weekend, pitting Romney and Gingrich against one another in some of the upcoming primary states. Romney's slipped a lot in some cases, and Gingrich is giving him a run for his money. I can't tell you whether that has to do with Gingrich's pluses or Romney's minuses, but either way it's looking like Gingrich at the very least be competitive.
Another interesting data point: as a snapshot of this slice of the election season, Obama beats both Romney and Gingrich in some pretty red states -- South Carolina and Florida. Obama beats the pants off of Gingrich, and edges Romney. Obviously it's way too far way to use this as gospel, but it does put an interesting spin on who might be more electable in the general vs the primary. This points towards the conventional wisdom. Romney would be the general candidate most likely to give Obama a good run; Gingrich is decidedly not that guy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
Thank God!!
There may be hope for us yet.
Just read that Gary Busey is holding off on endorsing Newt.
Quote from: guido911 on December 14, 2011, 03:13:19 PM
Just read that Gary Busey is holding off on endorsing Newt.
. .{Biting my nails in anxious anticipation}. .
He might as well film himself romantically with a chicken because this Southern Fried is done.
Newt Gingrich: 'CNN is less biased than Fox'
QuoteIn what some might consider an act of GOP political suicide, Newt Gingrich slammed Fox News earlier this week, saying that the cable news channel has favored Mitt Romney throughout the 2012 Republican race—and that CNN has been the more "fair-and-balanced" network this cycle.
"I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through," Gingrich said during a meeting with tea party leaders in Delaware on Wednesday, according RealClearPolitics.com, which said it was granted access to the private event. "In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we're more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That's just a fact."
The former House Speaker blasted the Roger Ailes-led network, blaming Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of Fox News-owner News Corp., for the bias.
"I assume it's because Murdoch at some point said, 'I want Romney,' and so 'fair and balanced' became 'Romney,'" Gingrich said. "And there's no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox."
"This is nothing other than Newt auditioning for a windfall of a gig at CNN—that's the kind of man he is," a spokeswoman for Fox News responded in a statement to Yahoo News. "Not to mention, he's still bitter about the fact that we terminated his contributor contract." (Gingrich was dropped by Fox last year shortly before he announced his presidential bid.)
Gingrich added that he will attend the White House Correspondents' Association dinner later this month—as a guest of CNN.
"The only press events I go to are interesting dinners when the wife insists on it, so we're going to go to the White House Correspondents' dinner because she wants to. And we're actually going to go to CNN's table, not Fox."
Chumming for a gig at CNN to help get him out of $4.5 mil of campaign debt? Faux must have turned down his show proposal, eh Townsend?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
Chumming for a gig at CNN to help get him out of $4.5 mil of campaign debt? Faux must have turned down his show proposal, eh Townsend?
That's what I was thinking. They need each other.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
Chumming for a gig at CNN to help get him out of $4.5 mil of campaign debt? Faux must have turned down his show proposal, eh Townsend?
I'm really hoping CNN is just messing with him.
I'm watching a good series called "The Story of US" on Netflix and whenever he pops up as a historian I cringe a little.
Quote from: Townsend on April 12, 2012, 03:55:01 PM
I'm really hoping CNN is just messing with him.
I'm watching a good series called "The Story of US" on Netflix and whenever he pops up as a historian I cringe a little.
As much crap as I give him, he actually is very scholarly and a very good historian. But he seems way more infatuated with himself than others are. Well except for Callista, it would appear.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2012, 04:30:05 PM
As much crap as I give him, he actually is very scholarly and a very good historian. But he seems way more infatuated with himself than others are. Well except for Callista, it would appear.
Well you gotta give a man credit if he can make a girl's eyes bugger out...
(http://tunc.biz/gop_callista_gingrich_portrait.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on April 12, 2012, 04:34:47 PM
Well you gotta give a man credit if he can make a girl's eyes bugger out...
(http://tunc.biz/gop_callista_gingrich_portrait.jpg)
Looks like she's ready to get Batman!
Quote from: Townsend on April 12, 2012, 04:34:47 PM
Well you gotta give a man credit if he can make a girl's eyes bugger out...
(http://tunc.biz/gop_callista_gingrich_portrait.jpg)
"This town needs an enema!"