quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Senoj, I smell an awful lot of maybe, if, and imagine coming off your (quite reasonable, to my mind) analysis of Romney's 'plan'.
Given that, is there a reason Democrats ought to fill in those numerous blanks with the (in hindsight) most reasonable courses of action? Some wellspring of Republican assumption of good intent on Obama's part, perhaps?
Rakeesh, I think my complaint about taking things out of context stands regardless of the imagine/if/maybes in my analysis. The OpEd bears only passing similarity to the caricature of it the Democrats have drawn. Romney said the government shouldn't give the auto industry the bailout they asked for, an it didn't; it gave them a much smaller one. It says the auto industry should be made to go through a managed bankruptcy, and it did. It said that only by decreasing labor costs could the companies refer to profitability, and that's exactly what happened. In fact, it seems like the only parts of his plan that weren't implemented were the limitations on executive compensation and the increase in basic energy research. Funny, no?
Inferring that Romney would have let the auto industry go into Chapter 7 liquidation based on that OpEd (which is exactly what Democrats have done) requires a lot more stretching of the imagination than what I wrote. So I don't think your characterization of my analysis is very reasonable.
As to whether we should expect any better, I guess it shouldn't be disappointing that Democrats are "filling in those blanks" in a way that is intellectually dishonest but politically advantageous; politics is like that (on both sides of the aisle). What I'm realy disappointed by, or at least surprised by, is that after three years it took me reading the OpEd out of personal curiosity to realize how completely Romney's words had been twisted.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
When the writer started waxing sorrowful for the baby boomers, the pillars of our entire country, I stopped reading, and erased what I had read up to that point.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, well your focus is a lot more specific than I realized, Senoj. I thought you were bringing in wider campaign statements and goals as well, not discussing just the OpEd and Romney's statements of the auto industry in this specific instance.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that Peggy Noonan still persists in defining "extremism" as "opposition to the extreme position I hold."
Also, the idea that the Baby Boomers are holding the country together (and have been doing so for years) is pretty laughable, Geraine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim?
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
... what the christ.
"partisanship" aside, when did Peggy Noonan become a loathsome anklebiting twit?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:General George Armstrong Custer died in 1876, but that doesn't mean we should forget his legacy of slaughtering indigenous peoples.
That's why Republican National Committee leader and GOP lobbyist Pat Rogers has condemned New Mexico governor Susana Martinez for meeting with American Indians.
In an email sent to Martinez' staff, Rogers wrote—
"The state is going to hell. Col. [Allen] Weh would not have dishonored Col. Custer in this manner."
Allen Weh was a Republican candidate who ran against Martinez.
Rogers is the RNC National Committeeman for New Mexico and a recent member of the RNC Executive Committee. ProgressNow New Mexico is calling for his dismissal.
"Such a blatantly racist statement against our Native people is offensive from anyone, but to come from a national GOP leader and lobbyist for some of our country's largest corporations is indefensible. These e-mails show the contempt and disrespect New Mexico's Republican leadership has for our Native people. Unless they drop Pat Rogers immediately, we can rightly assume that those organizations he speaks for, including the RNC, Modrall Sperling and his lobbying clients, feel the same way."
On the other hand, maybe Rogers was just using "redist" ironically?
posted
How bizarre. When on Earth did Custer ever establish a legacy of anything more than suicidally stupid arrogance and negligence?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the actual facts and figures that make it truly hard for Obama to run on his record:
“With the release Friday morning of the August job numbers, there are still 261,000 fewer Americans employed than when Obama became president. Almost a million -- 822,000 -- fewer Americans have permanent jobs.”
“Former President Bill Clinton made the argument Wednesday night: ‘No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.’
“But Clinton is wrong.
“Democrats may not want to hear it, but Reagan faced an unemployment rate as high as 10.8% and was able to drive it down below 8 percent within 14 months. By contrast, unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0%, eight months after his “stimulus” was passed, and after another 33 months it is still above 8%.”
“The middle and upper income jobs lost during the recession are being replaced by lower-wage jobs during Obama’s recovery. Middle income occupations accounted for 60 percent of the jobs lost from the first quarter of 2008 to first quarter of 2010, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been in lower-wage occupations. While we have lost jobs in skilled construction, real estate, and supervisors, most new jobs are in retail sales and food preparation.”
“U.S. employers added 96,000 jobs last month, a weak figure that could slow the momentum President Barack Obama hoped to gain from his speech Thursday night to the Democratic National Convention.”
“The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July. But that was only because more people gave up looking for jobs. People who are out of work are counted as unemployed only if they're looking for a job.”
“The government also said Friday that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in July and June than first estimated. The economy has added just 139,000 jobs a month since the start of the year, below 2011's average of 153,000.”
“Friday's report was discouraging throughout. Hourly pay fell, manufacturers cut the most jobs in two years and the number of people in the work force dropped to its lowest level in 31 years.
“In addition to those who've given up looking for work, many young Americans are avoiding the job market by remaining in school. All told, the proportion of the adult population that's either working or looking for work fell to 63.5 percent.
“That's the lowest level in 31 years for the so-called labor force participation rate. The rate peaked at 67.3 percent in early 2000.”
posted
Fox news has a conservative slant, so we don't have to believe anything they say. Find some different sources. Fun huh?!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time believing that the Custer thing is not a hoax, satire, or some sort of tone-deaf attempt at a joke.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and by the way, not that you needed to, but that was another excellent example of a failure to answer a direct question about one of your (self) vaunted political predictions, Ron.
It's no wonder your pride in your predictive ability is so great, when you make it a point to behave as if they were never, ever proven wrong, even when people say and point out exactly why they were factually inaccurate.
(This, by the way Dan, is the sort of bul*%#€t I'm talking about. If you still stand by your claim that Ron is not the worst example of this garbage around here, that is.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how the employment levels would look if Republican senators, representatives and governors hadn't been pushing for more public sector cuts. Budget cuts in education, in emergency workers, in nursing, in government jobs across the board. Public sector job losses were noticeably worse in Republican-controlled states.
So. They refused tax increases, slashed budgets, put people out of work, but it's the other guy's fault. Blaming Obama for the results of their own actions seems to be a running theme this year.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I wonder how the employment levels would look if Republican senators, representatives and governors hadn't been pushing for more public sector cuts. Budget cuts in education, in emergency workers, in nursing, in government jobs across the board. Public sector job losses were noticeably worse in Republican-controlled states.
So. They refused tax increases, slashed budgets, put people out of work, but it's the other guy's fault. Blaming Obama for the results of their own actions seems to be a running theme this year.
Luckily they saved all those military jobs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fox News Channel is the most reliable and informative news source because they do not censor and slant their news the way most other mainstream media sources do. Remember Chris Matthews of MSNBC saying that whenever Obama enters the room, he feels "a tingle down his leg"? Do you really want to get your news from news sources that sent hundreds of "investigative journalists" to Alaska for the sole purpose of trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, when she was picked by Senator McCain to be his running mate in 2008--and every, EVERY negative claim made about Palin was eventually proven wrong, with no retractions or apologies from such foresworn organizations as the New York Times?
What should be added to the dismal figure of only 96,000 new jobs, is the statistic that 368,000 people have dropped out of the labor force entirely, apparently having given up trying to find a job. If this number were factored in, the unemployment rate would be about 9.1%, according to an expert on Fox News Channel. Some people say that if all the people who have given up seeking work, especially minorities such as African-Americans, were factored in, the unemployment rate would be more than 14%. Which suggests that fewer African-Americans will vote for Obama this time, or even vote at all. Any poll that does not base its conclusions on surveys of "likely voters" should be disregarded, more than usual. Efforts by Democrat-favoring organizations like ACORN will have a much harder time in their "get out the votes" efforts than was the case in 2008. In the case of the Obama presidency, the bloom is definitely off the rose.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seriously think they sent "hundreds of investigative journalists?" Just for practical purposes, why not send, I don't know, 3? or 5? Hundreds would have tripped over each other, and been less effective than a small few skilled investigators.
Hint: this doesn't make sense because it's not what happened. The news agencies sent a few people. Not hundreds. Not even all together. Not even close.
As for your other claims, well, I don't know how to convince you you're wrong other than suggesting that you go out and learn something about journalism. I know you claim to be a journalist, but then that may be why I'm not surprised to hear you think Fox does journalism too.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron is an odd conundrum. He writes fairly well for the most part, which would hint at intelligence. Yet when you read the words and process their meaning the veil is lifted.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:What should be added to the dismal figure of only 96,000 new jobs, is the statistic that 368,000 people have dropped out of the labor force entirely, apparently having given up trying to find a job. If this number were factored in, the unemployment rate would be about 9.1%, according to an expert on Fox News Channel. Some people say that if all the people who have given up seeking work, especially minorities such as African-Americans, were factored in, the unemployment rate would be more than 14%. Which suggests that fewer African-Americans will vote for Obama this time, or even vote at all. Any poll that does not base its conclusions on surveys of "likely voters" should be disregarded, more than usual. Efforts by Democrat-favoring organizations like ACORN will have a much harder time in their "get out the votes" efforts than was the case in 2008. In the case of the Obama presidency, the bloom is definitely off the rose.
Nice try, your Reagan numbers were based on the same rubric, so you either need to factor in those who were no longer looking for a job then as well as now, or you need to stick to the original numbers.
Further, Reagan's issue were stagflation, high unemployment, and a *much much much much* higher federal tax rate and corporate tax rate to toy with. Obama has high unemployment, low investment, high debt sluggish economy, with a rock bottom tax rate, that has nowhere to go but up realistically. But the economy by most account should only get stronger from here *unless* the government interferes, by say, letting the payroll tax cut expire, dropping the home owner's tax cut, ceasing federal subsidizing of student loans so they require payments while a student is in school, and repealing Obamacare with Vouchercare.
You know, rewarding the rich who paid for all their campaigns, while ignoring the middle class and poor who don't vote for them anyway.
I'm sorry, but I still clearly remember what happened from 2001-2008, and it was a stripping of our civil rights, rupturing of the economy, trillions of wasteful spending on the military industrial complex, and piss poor responses to Americans when they needed help (ala Katrina). I credit Pres. Bush for one thing, not standing in the way before Pres. Obama took office. But really the bank bailout was a foregone conclusion, you don't spend trillions of dollars and then let the banking industry collapse while talking about being a fiscal hawk.
Again, according to most economists, the economy should consistently improve if our current policies are pursued. This seems like the prime time for Republicans to rush in, try to scuff things up, get blocked, and then take credit for the economy growing again without having actually contributed to it one wit. But hey, the average voter is stupid anyway, they'll believe whatever narrative they spin to them via Fox News aka "We intentionally report incorrect party affiliation when Republicans screw up, but not vice versa."
I'll be damned if I'm going to let the guy who created much of the mess, back in right as most of the cleanup is being done, and then ride that horse for decades to come in every future election.
posted
I wonder if Obama will follow tradition and be gracious in his concession speech, or will denounce the election result as racism, and make such intemperate remarks that he stirs some people up into starting a race war. He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contemporaries of Obama who say he wants to start a revolution: truthful. Contemporaries who say that's absurd: lying.
Once again Ron's fundamentally dishonest way of evaluating politics serves to 'prove' the conclusion he already believed in. Shocking!
Still haven't answered Samprimary's question re: convention bump, Ron. It's not going to to away. Still haven't disavowed the lie you told with respect to the video, either. That's still on the books. Now I know you lack both the integrity and the guts to do so, but I wanted to take a moment to remind you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
Because everything one believes in college is still exactly the same as what one believes at 51 years old.
The fact that you're even predicting a 'race war' in 21st century America, Ron, shows how far off your ideas about the world really are. Plus, I guess in your head Obama's process goes: 1) Lose election 2) Start 'race war' 3) ?????? 4) Communism! Yay!
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I wonder if Obama will follow tradition and be gracious in his concession speech, or will denounce the election result as racism, and make such intemperate remarks that he stirs some people up into starting a race war. He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
Hahahaha race war? Are you serious? Sooo, what's your Free Republic username?
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Since you keep using Fox News, I'll keep using Snopes.
Obama was involved in exactly one case like this. Banks were already giving bad loans to white customers with similar financial situations, Obama's firm sued banks for discriminating based on race. The banks should have either stopped issuing bad loans, or issued bad loans to everybody not just white people.
That sounds fair doesn't it Ron? Banks were already issuing bad loans with teaser interest rates, then bundling them into credit default swaps and selling them off to other banks. What's wrong with making sure banks can articulate why they didn't give a loan to a black family when they gave the exact same loan to a white one?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: So you do admit that Obama did participate in such lawsuits against banks, to try to force them to grant mortgages to people who could not afford them. Just because he focused on black people also getting their share of mortgages they could not afford does not change the fact that Obama participated in the very thing that produced the real estate collapse that in turn triggered the economic collapse.
As for Samprimary's questions about "Convention Bump," I merely reported what was said by the commentators on Fox News Channel. They may have been referring to their tally of Twitter responses to speakers at the convention. Obviously there were no regular polls available within hours of any given speech.
Rakeesh, I do still deny I lied about anything. Your perception of things is not truth no matter how many times you vainly and snidely repeat it, nor has any power to make true what you want to be true. If that is your attitude, then you are as bad a narcissist as Barack Obama himself.
I am content to allow people to review the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Unlike you, who seem determined to tell everyone else what you think has been proven. Your whole argument is based on personal attacks against me. I am willing to allow God to be the final judge on who is more truthful and more perceptive.
Bella Bee, you may not think it is possible now. But consider the cultic following that Obama has. If he is the pathological narcissist that some expert observers have claimed he is, then there does exist a real danger that he might react badly to losing the election, so badly that he uses his "charisma" to stir up violence among his diehard supporters. I predicted this four years ago. My prediction is still quite possible of coming true. I hope Obama has better sense. But I am not certain that he does. If it does happen, remember that I warned you. It is more possible than you obviously want to believe.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it does happen, remember that I warned you. It is more possible than you obviously want to believe.
The question is, Ron, when it doesn't happen, will you remember that you predicted it? Will you admit that you were wrong and apologize for speaking ill of others? No? Thought not.
(By the way, had it ever occurred to you that having such low expectations of so many of your country's inhabitants - especially when it's as unrealistic and off the wall as this prediction - suggests that you might actually be incredibly unpatriotic? No? Thought not.)
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is a God, and it is a god of truth, then you should be frightened, because you are a liar, and because you have a liar's heart.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: [QUOTE] (By the way, had it ever occurred to you that having such low expectations of your country's inhabitants - especially when it's as unrealistic and off the wall as this prediction - suggests that you might actually be incredibly unpatriotic? No? Thought not.)
Not far under the surface of the rabid neo-con platform is the sad truth, that most of these people hate America. But they need to "Love America" because "patriotic" is how they define themselves. Never mind their hatred of their countrymen and country. But, and not to automatically invoke any false-equivalences, that is common of any extreme viewpoint that elevates the self-worth of a narcissist- Michael Moore hates America about as much as Ron does. They love themselves, and here is no room for country or for subtlety in that equation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Litigation against so-called "red-lining" by lending institutions, a practice which is illegal, did not, in any way, contribute to the mortgage bubble. Not in any way. Had you *any* understanding of these events, you would know that. You do not. Instead racist innuendo and blatant falsehood is all you have. This is quite sad- this whole line of reasoning is embarassing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I do still deny I lied about anything. Your perception of things is not truth no matter how many times you vainly and snidely repeat it, nor has any power to make true what you want to be true. If that is your attitude, then you are as bad a narcissist as Barack Obama himself.
You lied about what was on that video. You lied about Democrats being able to embrace spending cuts. You're also now lying about your predictions for the Republican convention-you weren't just reporting the reports of others, you agreed with them and went on to add your own emphasis.
It's not snide to have contempt for your dishonesty and cowardice when you so plainly exhibit them. You can deny it all you like, and I know you will, because for whatever profoundly batty reason your own repetitions and assurances carry so much more weight than plain black and white quotes.
But *whenever* you have one of these discussions, you end up being the lone wacky voice in the wilderness. You're not the rare wise prophet society scorns, you're merely a more well spoken and presumably better groomed guy with a sandwich board with slogans and exclamation points-and that's at best. The more likely interpretation is simply that you're another partisan hack, a liar who vets reality on the basis of whether it conforms to his own agenda, and who believes it CANNOT be dishonest to carry the party's water. Well, it is, and what's more we all know it is. There's a reason people who don't conform to your partisan agenda recoil from your politics and predictions, and they do. They do here and wherever else you share them. It's because the only way you can appear both sensible and honest is to remain among the choir.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: BlackBlade: So you do admit that Obama did participate in such lawsuits against banks, to try to force them to grant mortgages to people who could not afford them. Just because he focused on black people also getting their share of mortgages they could not afford does not change the fact that Obama participated in the very thing that produced the real estate collapse that in turn triggered the economic collapse.
No, you don't understand. LISTEN! Obama was involved in *one* suit against Citibank. Citibank was already handing out bad loans, of their own volition. Think of it this way.
Credit = A, B, or C Where A is great, B is moderate, C is crap.
Smith Family Credit = C | Smith Family Ethnicity = White
Johnson Family Credit = C | Johnson Family Ethnicity = Black
Smith families were qualifying for loans, without any issue. Obama's law firm agreed to represent a host of Johnson families who though they had similar credit ratings the bank was denying Johnsons loans. There's no empirical evidence that white people pay off their loans and black people do not. Nor could the bank adequately demonstrate that every Johnson family who applied for loans had substantially worse credit than the equivalent Smith family. So the bank was sued for unequal lending practices, and settled out of court.
And no, banks being forced to be fair in their lending practices is not what created the housing bubble, and the subsequent collapse. It wasn't Bill Clinton forcing banks to give loans to the poor. It wasn't even George W. Bush's fault, though he was president when the house of cards started falling.
Now, if you just found yourself agreeing with that last sentence Ron, then the only rational conclusion you must also make is that Obama's role in the crisis must equal to or less than Bush's.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for Samprimary's questions about "Convention Bump," I merely reported what was said by the commentators on Fox News Channel. They may have been referring to their tally of Twitter responses to speakers at the convention. Obviously there were no regular polls available within hours of any given speech.
Do.
You.
Know.
What.
The.
Convention.
Bump.
Ended.
Up.
Being.
It is not a difficult question. You could give me a percentage, or you could say "no, i never followed up on that."
I will continue to bring this up until you can actually answer the question.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
No. You ask that people remember not what you said, but your bizarre dishonest interpretations of what you said after the fact-when you can even be brought to admit you said something that even *might* have been a wild-ass absurd prediction, or an outright lie.
For example, you lied about spending and Democrats. You said they would never get behind spending cuts. It's a fact that you made that claim. You can and will lie all you like about it, but it was still said by you. And then when you were presented with factual evidence that Democrats CAN endorse spending cuts, even big ones, you suddenly had nothing to say.
So yes, we will remember what you say. We'll remember that in addition to putting forward comically absurd predictions about the future (Obama starting a race war, Romney winning in a landslide under any circumstances short of sudden major scandal), you're also willing and even proud to tell transparent lies and smugly claim they were true.
So you don't need to ask anyone to remember. The spectacle of you is memorable enough.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
Don't worry Ron, I will remember what you said because for whatever reason "Crazy" and "Insane" always tends to stick around for a longer period of time. Possibly it's because I joke about the discussions with friends, or maybe it just has a lasting impression because I get a kick out of seeing how crazy people really are.
Either way, I can assure you I will continue to remember what you said, and continue to think of you as a crazy person. Until Dec 21st of course, because then the other crazies say the world will end, and after that I won't have any memory of these forums.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... You're not the rare wise prophet society scorns, you're merely a more well spoken and presumably better groomed guy with a sandwich board with slogans and exclamation points-and that's at best.
With an oddly large and engaged crowd on the sidewalk
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well to be fair he *also* believes that part of the Constitution should be amended to change that to 1:1.
I did get a kick out of the following from Wikipedia,
quote:Many of the founding fathers greatly admired the British government. At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton called the British government "the best in the world," and said he "doubted whether anything short of it would do in America." In his "Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States," John Adams said "the English Constitution is, in theory, both for the adjustment of the balance and the prevention of its vibrations, the most stupendous fabric of human invention." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords. John Dickinson said the Senate should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."
Why don't our founding father's realize that what's good for other countries is *not* good for America!?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For one thing, they're all dead.
That's blasphemy to talk about the founding fathers that way! Speaking about them like they're just normal fallible humans like everyone else. For shame.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, there's no denying he puts on a good show! So does Clint Eastwood. Not voting for him, either;)
-----
Romney on Romney: he is 'as conservative as the Constitution'. Heh heh heheheheh.
Romney thinks black people are only 3/5ths of a person?
Oh, there's that of course, and many other gems, but mostly I was having a little giggle at the notion of the Constitution as a conservative document, as well as the (implied) notion that the Founders meant for it to remain as it was forever. Both outlooks seem to me to require a LOT of squinting and tilting of heads.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thread Denizens: I've had to think about this thread as late, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things being said here. While I haven't put a stop to it as soon as I noticed it as I should have, I'm going to ask you all to self-police.
I'm not comfortable with calling posters "crazy" or "insane". If it was honestly believed, and was being delicately approached from a "Seek help, please!" angle, I might allow it, but when it's being used to basically negate anything a posters says as nonsense, then we are in denigrating another poster territory.
If a poster is spouting off their opinion, and ignores all evidence to the contrary then the correct response is to tell the poster you have no intention of conversing with them until they respond to the things you've already said, or that they are being dishonest when they pretend you haven't said anything but that they expect you to respond to them.
I will handle posters who demonstrate bad behavior but are technically within the TOS. But I've let a few too many comments stand, that I wouldn't have on another day, and that's not right on my part.
Thanks for reading and considering my words.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |