FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day! (Page 31)

  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32  33   
Author Topic: Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day!
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
most people aren't aware that the republicans have turned the filibuster into a procedural motion, where a single person simply announces intent to filibuster and this ends not only an up or down vote (pending cloture) but ends debate over any bill.

Most people also don't recognize the impact of gerrymandering or why it's why we have so many districts packed (increasing extremism and honestly bad candidates) and this is why republicans, despite losing the national house vote, have tons more seats than democrats.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
most people aren't aware that the republicans have turned the filibuster into a procedural motion, where a single person simply announces intent to filibuster and this ends not only an up or down vote (pending cloture) but ends debate over any bill.
Did the Republicans do that? That doesn't sound right.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Depends on how you look at it but not really. Several rule changes happened to create this situation. One was the two-track system which was created by a mostly Democratic Senate during/just after the civil rights fights which were holding up everything else. Before, a filibuster would stop debate on everything. Now, other bills can be debated while a bill is being filibustered.

That Republicans have recently been the most likely to abuse this rule seems pretty clear to me.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Former GOP admits to GOP Voter Suppression
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/asian-demvote1.png
Awesome, that's moving pretty fast

From here.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The reality should be seeping in to viewers of the Sunday shows that the Republicans don’t have a game plan. They don’t have a single, specific proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff. And even if they had one, they don’t have a roadmap to get there. They keep expecting Obama to come back with something more to their liking, which they’d also reject. Many Republicans literally don’t understand what is happening. Sen. Charles Grassley tweeted over the weekend that he was frustrated that President Obama hadn’t embraced the recommendation of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Apparently, he is one of the many people in Washington who doesn’t understand that Bowles-Simpson recommended letting the Bush tax rates on the wealthy expire, while also proposing to cap or eliminate deductions primarily enjoyed by the wealthy.

Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
In fairness, there are just as many articles wondering why Obama has more than doubled his demands. The GOP seems willing now to embrace $800 billion in increased taxes, something that was anathema only a few weeks ago. They're even willing to accept more, but only if real entitlement reform is a part of it, exactly as Simpson Bowles demanded.

They'll do tax increases, but only tied to entitlement reform that reduces spending.

I can't blame them for wanting to tie the two together.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that that's what they want. But Obama has not put any cuts on the table himself. Instead he has allowed the Republicans to explicitly lay out what cuts they want to see happen. They will have to deal with the repercussions as those requests become public, instead of letting Obama start from the middle, while they block him and then say he refuses to accept their ideas. The GOP hasn't announced a plan they can all support, Obama and the Democrats have.

I'm happy to let the Republicans learn to pro-actively govern again, even if that means they have to play a dangerous game of advocating for cuts without angering too many people. If they want my vote, they better stop spending all their time thinking they represent big business, and start protecting things that matter to me.

Personally, I think Ralph Nader was onto something when he proposed a small tax on stock trading. That along with cuts to defense, letting Medicard/Medicade negotiate their own rates with hospitals, increasing the tax cap on Social Security, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone making $250K+ a year, extending the payroll tax cut, and creating a decent healthcare exchange for all 50 states that requires each citizen to finance in part their care (Contributing $1500 USD for having a baby for example) are all things I want done in the next four years.

Also, build some freaking high speed rail from Los Angeles to Boston to Miami.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I agree that that's what they want. But Obama has not put any cuts on the table himself. Instead he has allowed the Republicans to explicitly lay out what cuts they want to see happen. They will have to deal with the repercussions as those requests become public, instead of letting Obama start from the middle, while they block him and then say he refuses to accept their ideas. The GOP hasn't announced a plan they can all support, Obama and the Democrats have.
I take it this is partially from Krugman:

quote:
The GOP's Big Budget Mumble

In the ongoing battle of the budget, President Obama has done something very cruel. Declaring that this time he won’t negotiate with himself, he has refused to lay out a proposal reflecting what he thinks Republicans want. Instead, he has demanded that Republicans themselves say, explicitly, what they want. And guess what: They can’t or won’t do it.

No, really. While there has been a lot of bluster from the G.O.P. about how we should reduce the deficit with spending cuts, not tax increases, no leading figures on the Republican side have been able or willing to specify what, exactly, they want to cut.

And there’s a reason for this reticence. The fact is that Republican posturing on the deficit has always been a con game, a play on the innumeracy of voters and reporters. Now Mr. Obama has demanded that the G.O.P. put up or shut up — and the response is an aggrieved mumble.

Here’s where we are right now: As his opening bid in negotiations, Mr. Obama has proposed raising about $1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, with the majority coming from letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire and the rest from measures to limit tax deductions. He would also cut spending by about $400 billion, through such measures as giving Medicare the ability to bargain for lower drug prices.

Republicans have howled in outrage. Senator Orrin Hatch, delivering the G.O.P. reply to the president’s weekly address, denounced the offer as a case of “bait and switch,” bearing no relationship to what Mr. Obama ran on in the election. In fact, however, the offer is more or less the same as Mr. Obama’s original 2013 budget proposal and also closely tracks his campaign literature.

So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that’s a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

quote:
The point is that when you put Republicans on the spot and demand specifics about how they’re going to make good on their posturing about spending and deficits, they come up empty. There’s no there there.

And there never was. Republicans claim to be for much smaller government, but as a political matter they have always attacked government spending in the abstract, never coming clean with voters about the reality that big cuts in government spending can happen only if we sharply curtail very popular programs. In fact, less than a month ago the Romney/Ryan campaign was attacking Mr. Obama for, yes, cutting Medicare.

Now Republicans find themselves boxed in. With taxes scheduled to rise on Jan. 1 in the absence of an agreement, they can’t play their usual game of just saying no to tax increases and pretending that they have a deficit reduction plan. And the president, by refusing to help them out by proposing G.O.P.-friendly spending cuts, has deprived them of political cover. If Republicans really want to slash popular programs, they will have to propose those cuts themselves.

So while the fiscal cliff — still a bad name for the looming austerity bomb, but I guess we’re stuck with it — is a bad thing from an economic point of view, it has had at least one salutary political effect. For it has finally laid bare the con that has always been at the core of the G.O.P.’s political strategy.

whee!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And there’s a reason for this reticence. The fact is that Republican posturing on the deficit has always been a con game, a play on the innumeracy of voters and reporters. Now Mr. Obama has demanded that the G.O.P. put up or shut up — and the response is an aggrieved mumble.
I do really wonder at how people don't know this now. Like, how it doesn't seem to be a commonly accepted fact? Or is it? I don't know, I don't get to the states that often.


Although, I have to say I do relish the impending claims that Obama is holding the economy hostage by refusing to propose solutions to the fiscal cliff. That will induce a laugh and urge to vomit in rage.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Krugman (yet again) on three card budget monte

quote:
It goes without saying that the Republican “counteroffer” is basically fake. It calls for $800 billion in revenue from closing loopholes, but doesn’t specify a single loophole to be closed; it calls for huge spending cuts, but aside from raising the Medicare age and cutting the Social Security inflation adjustment — moves worth only around $300 billion — it doesn’t specify how these cuts are to be achieved. So it’s basically the Paul Ryan method: scribble down some numbers and pretend that you’re a budget wonk with a Serious plan.
quote:
Oh, and for all the seniors or near-seniors who voted Republican because you thought they would protect Medicare from that bad guy Obama: you’ve been had.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Well what's your analysis? Is the Republican's Great Wall of Denial fatally compromised at this stage? Has the election broken the back of the central strategy they employed against Obama to get to this impass? Because now, no budget proposal will get out of the house unless the Reublicans vote for it in significant numbers. Their majority there is a liability now in that regard. And if they don't, they're more than royally screwed, because they were the ones that forced us to this cliff, nd they have no way of denying that. The enormous gamble they made to get Obama gone now comes due for payment.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
None of this matters until we actually go over the Cliff, if we do in fact go over the Cliff.

All that matters is who gets tagged for the blame when we hit the bottom. Polls suggest it will be Congressional Republicans. But all of this is just posturing up to the last minute. Most people have no idea what Krugman is talking about, they see all these numbers being tossed around for tax increases and spending cuts and think these are fully fleshed out ideas, having no clue that both sides are just tossing BS numbers at each other without doing the actual work.

The GOP will assume they can work the media, as they always have, and come out smelling like roses. And it's entirely possible they will. It's all about who you blame when nothing gets done. That's how government has worked for the last three years. If nothing gets done, we'll see who gets blamed and how they react, but that's a good month away from now. This is all just talk.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I do really wonder at how people don't know this now. Like, how it doesn't seem to be a commonly accepted fact? Or is it? I don't know, I don't get to the states that often.

I think an awful lot of people sincerely believe that government spending is a massive problem and needs to be curtailed. They see Republicans as trying to rein in a reckless and wasteful government that has grown out of control.

Whether or not any of that is true, a lot of people believe it. So no, I wouldn't call it a commonly accepted fact that Republicans are playing a con game.

Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Ok. It's just sort of amazing. Sort of really amazing. It makes me wonder at what in hell Mitt Romney would have done if he'd been elected. And I do realize, part of his not getting elected was that a lot of people kind of got that he talked about reigning in spending, but also never really got an earful of how he planned to do it. Whether they realized that this was because he didn't actually plan to do it, or because they thought he didn't know, I did get the sense that people were on to the scam.

But at this late stage, I remain a little flabbergasted at people still not getting it. I know some actual conservatives who get it. They're in a tough position, because they don't really have anyone to vote for anymore.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Looks like going over the fiscal cliff might be better idea than the GOP counter proposals.

I'm also crossing my fingers for Obama to just mint a 1 trillion$ coin for the next debt ceiling talks.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Is the mint allowed to create any denomination they want without Congressional approval?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Yup. They can make a coin of any denomination, Krugman suggested it. Obama can also invoke the 14th.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
this week's republican folly includes a big old slap to the face of an aging bob dole and makes it really hard to think kindly in any terms of movement and tea party republicans
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/mcconnell-filibusters-his-own-bill-to-lift-debt-limit.php

quote:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats don’t have the votes to weaken Congress’ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill.

The legislation, modeled on a proposal McConnell offered last year as a “last-choice option” to avert a U.S. debt default, would permit the president to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling unless Congress mustered a two-thirds majority to stop him. President Obama has championed the idea.

McConnell brought up the legislation Thursday morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initially objected, seemingly proving the Republican leader’s point that it cannot pass the Senate. But then Reid ran it by his members and, in the afternoon, agreed to hold that same vote. This time it was McConnell who objected.

“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”

wow
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eloyambres
New Member
Member # 12924

 - posted      Profile for Eloyambres   Email Eloyambres         Edit/Delete Post 
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Gold plated spam.)

[ December 19, 2012, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]

Posts: 2 | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eloyambres:
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Gold plated spam.)

I'm waiting for platinum-plated spam, if you don't mind. It'll be on sale after the holidays.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
hi thread, aside from the wired article that got to the root of how romney's 'business acumen' was utterly worthless in the election and as a supposed demonstration of his leadership capacity, i have really not seen, heard, or thought much of romney at all

funny how fast that went

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
hi thread, aside from the wired article that got to the root of how romney's 'business acumen' was utterly worthless in the election and as a supposed demonstration of his leadership capacity, i have really not seen, heard, or thought much of romney at all

funny how fast that went

I remember seeing an article saying he was retiring from politics and was taking a position on the Board for one of the major hotels. Don't recall which.

It's funny though how he's just kinda faded out of the public eye for the most part. It seems like most people who run for President and lose either stick around in politics or go on to do something which keeps them in the public arena. He seems to be just taking a sabbatical from it all.

Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I think he needed to get out of it to get over it. It's finally over. He won't be nominated in 2016, he had two chances and missed both times. After the pace of a campaign, simply going home probably isn't much of an option, although joining a Board isn't exactly a ton of work.

But I suspect he's basically in a state of mourning.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveRogers:
It seems like most people who run for President and lose either stick around in politics or go on to do something which keeps them in the public arena.

That's not how it seems from my perspective at all. It might be interesting to see what the last 5 failed presidential bid candidates did for the 1-2 years post-election.

Go for it. [Wink]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post 
I am probably thinking more long term (as in beyond the 1-2 years after running mark) than in the immediate years after the presidency. But John McCain, John Kerry, and Al Gore are still in the public eye.

My observation may also be biased because those are the only elections during which I had much awareness of the elections (due to my age).

Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
McCain and Kerry were/are both senators, which necessitates them remaining in the public eye somewhat. Not exactly a fair comparison.

Al Gore largely disappeared for at least a couple years, too, before showing up to criticize Bush and then take up the environmentalist cause.

And, yeah, that also ain't very far back. What about Dole? H W Bush? Dukakis? Mondale? Most of them didn't remain in the public eye significantly, especially not for the period immediately following the election.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought McCain was too old back when he was the Republican nominee for president. I figured though that he was vastly superior to the grossly unqualified and incompetent Democrat alternative, and I would be especially glad to have Sarah Palin be in line to be the Vice President and heir apparent. John Kerry (who got a purple heart for shagging himself, and who told the most egregious lies, many of them scripted by Ted Kennedy) is absolutely unfit to be anywhere outside of prison, let alone in any elective office. The entire Commonwealth of Massacusetts should be committed. And even though I voted for Al Gore, I have since come to be apalled at what a true extremist nut he is about agw, and after the quality leadership Bush Jr. demonstrated, I was glad he won.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
You're really not going to like the next Secretary of State, then...
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Al Gore largely disappeared for at least a couple years, too, before showing up to criticize Bush and then take up the environmentalist cause.

And, yeah, that also ain't very far back. What about Dole? H W Bush? Dukakis? Mondale? Most of them didn't remain in the public eye significantly, especially not for the period immediately following the election.

Yeah, those include some of the ones I was thinking of too.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
You all must be too young to remember Nixon...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
John Kerry (who got a purple heart for shagging himself, and who told the most egregious lies
apropos that this is the most unintentionally hilarious thing you have said this year.

i'll see if you can figure out why

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
If only we could all get Purple Hearts for shagging ourselves... Ah well.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.

Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
He threw a hand grenade into a bin of grain, turned his back, and got shrapnel in the butt. Later he claimed he had been wounded in battle, which was a bald-faced lie. But the worst thing he did was completely misrepresent the character of the American soldiers. Remember, even at My Lai, the crew of a helicopter gunship stopped the atrocities by threatening to open fire on the squad of soldiers committing the atrocities.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
To ignore for the time being your usual baseless flights of fancy (BTW, President Obama won the election) I am not sure the "shagging" is the word you are looking for.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.

Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!
I was unsure from where this original quote came from. Was he quoting himself from earlier on in this thread?
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Ron, I understand that you disagree with John Kerry's politics, and dislike his beliefs, but must you continue blackening his time spent risking his life in defense of this country. Your description of getting a wound in his backside from a grenade he himself threw doesn't even agree with what the Swift Boat people were paid to say 12 years ago.

His wound was in his arm--just below the elbow--but that isn't disgusting enough for your little rant so you make it a butt wound.

It was his first of three Purple Hearts. Do you claim that all of them, and all the witnesses who say he deserved each one are all wrong?

I could go on with the errors in your post, but I am not trying to slap you down on your opinion of Senator Kerry. You think he's a problem--fine. But he was a man who served his country. Respect the uniform.

Attack his voting. Attack his stance on issues. Attack his hair. But don't attack a veteran who ever fought to defend their country for defending their country.

The only people who attacked Senator McCain for his service were idiots. That goes for anyone who attacks veterans in an attempt to steal the luster of their honor.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.

Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!
I was unsure from where this original quote came from. Was he quoting himself from earlier on in this thread?
I assumed it was a post from somewhere else. I don't think it's from here.

Darth: I laughed hard at "attack his hair," and I agree with your general point. There's plenty about Kerry to attack, no need to make stuff up.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!

I'm glad we all just apparently have the 47% "gifts" Etch-A-Sketch candidate wrong. Surely he will shock us all by not just immediately going back into corporate level business ~
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Ron, I understand that you disagree with John Kerry's politics, and dislike his beliefs, but must you continue blackening his time spent risking his life in defense of this country. Your description of getting a wound in his backside from a grenade he himself threw doesn't even agree with what the Swift Boat people were paid to say 12 years ago.

His wound was in his arm--just below the elbow--but that isn't disgusting enough for your little rant so you make it a butt wound.

Barack nate buttwound
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Darth, what the Swiftboaters said orginally was the truth. Democrats and other unprincipled supporters of John Kerry used the liberals' time-honored tactic of attempting to discredit testimony that otherwise would sink them by getting a few ringers to claim to be Swiftboaters too, and make claims that could be easily disproven. They are the ones who were paid for their testimony. Communist (Soviet) agents--people who later were proven to be foreign communist agents--stood up in meetings of the antiwar crowd and claimed to be American soldiers and falsely confessed to all kinds of atrocities in Vietnam. Often the soldiers whose names were used found out about it and objected. But the Jane Fonda crowd never would admit that they had been so easily misled.

John Kerry read to Congress a statement prepared for him by Ted Kennedy that depicted American soldiers on the main as being despicable and criminal. In fact, not a word of that testimony was true. It was all propaganda designed to score points for the antiwar faction in Congress. So if you want to talk about someone blackening the name of the American soldier, that is what I have against John Kerry. And that was my generation who served in Vietnam, some of them people I went to college with. Besides being a liar about his wounds, he was actually the one who provided the writeups that were used as the basis for awarding the purple hearts and bronze star. I consider showing any respect to John Kerry as being unAmerican, and does a gross disservice to the vast majority of American soldiers who served during the Vietnam era. The man does truly deserve to be in Leavenworth.

[ December 21, 2012, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
[Citation Needed]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm just going to spoil the ending for you: Ron is not well in the head. His intentional-butt-wound-totally-facts statement is about as credible as his statement that we totally see barack obama's grandmother saying barack was born in an african village, but much like with that non-controversy, Ron will defend it to the death, barring few exceptions. Credibility of the source is irrelevant if he wants to believe it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

"Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault."

At one point, Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

Replied Obama: "You get nothing. I get that for free."

YES! PLEASE lets go over the cliff, the GOP loses all of their ability to obstruct if that happens.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Obama thinks he won a mandate in the election, and ignores that fact that he had no effective "coattails," and Republicans still retained control of Congress. With Obama's insanely inflated ego, nothing but force will prevent him from pushing the country over the fiscal cliff. And if it does happen, it will be Obama's fault. Only a total spendthrift fool would think you can solve a budget problem by NOT cutting spending. What is he and his fellow fools on the political Left going to do when China refuses to buy any more of our treasury notes?

Samprimary, I think it is worth pointing out that you and others who criticize me have never refuted any of my arguments, you only resort to ridicule and slander. You would probably swell up and die if you even tried to refute any of my arguments without resorting to insult and character assassination. This is one of the ways you confirm to me that you are on the side of wrong, and your arguments can be ignored by any honorable and honest person. "By their fruits ye shall know them...." and your fruit is all poison.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Funny how you still operate on the illusion that household economics somehow apply to nation-states. "spendthrifts" is entirely nonsensical, the entire world operates on debt as a driver of the economy, every country with austerity measures has seen growth slow down.

Cutting spending will contract the economy, the government is a needed tool in this, without aggregate demand to drive growth companies have no incentive to hire more workers.

How does Obama have an ego? Have you met the man? Have you spoken with him? What is it?

Also how will it be Obama's fault? They had an offer that included both but it was rejected, why is it Obama's fault when it is mostly Republican congressmen who signed a silly pledge to never raise taxes ever?

Also American debt sustainability has little to do with China, but entirely to do with the US Dollar being the world's reserve currency due to the Bretton-Wood's agreement.

If you were to claim that the IRA were not terrorists (like one Republican has claimed) and no one decided to go to the effort to line by line refuse that statement, does it make it true?

Everything you say is self evidently false.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32  33   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2