Republican Presidential Candidate 2012 - Pt 2

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

None at all. Sorry.

Are you content with the parties the way they are, or would you like to see a major shake-up?

[Bourne]

Do you see the Tea Party as being swallowed up by the Republican Party?

From what I've been seeing and hearing the Tea Party has it's sights set on establishment Republicans and will try to replace many of them in 2012.

The Tea Party certainly did shake things up in 2010. We'll see if the trend continues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ty_politicians

See how many I's or D's you see on this list.

Wiki can be shaky on facts but you can easily trace the roots of any of these candidates individually if you choose.

[Bourne]

Are you content with the parties the way they are, or would you like to see a major shake-up?

I think more than the one party we have now would be a good start. There are fringe elements to "both" parties but it is the establishment that always takes the grand prizes.

Since 1980 there has been a Bush or a Clinton in or associated with the White House.

It's that little known Sex Pistols LP, Monarchy in the U.S.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ty_politicians

See how many I's or D's you see on this list.

Wiki can be shaky on facts but you can easily trace the roots of any of these candidates individually if you choose.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

What I'm trying to say is that after the 2010 elections the Tea Party now understands that merely replacing Democrats with Republicans is not enough.

They will now be trying to replace some establishment Republicans with Tea Party Republicans.

We'll have to see how successful they are.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

I think more than the one party we have now would be a good start. There are fringe elements to "both" parties but it is the establishment that always takes the grand prizes.

Since 1980 there has been a Bush or a Clinton in or associated with the White House.

It's that little known Sex Pistols LP, Monarchy in the U.S.

We'll, Hillary is in Obama's cabinet, but she's not calling the shots.

Then again, maybe she is...

[Bourne]

Right. What you're not understanding is that almost all of those Tea Party candidates are "former" Republicans. They are the same people they're trying to kick out of office.

The Tea Party could no longer be taken seriously when they chose Michelle Bachmann as their candidate.

[RBS]

The biggest regret is that people on the right are unable or afraid to hold their politicians accountable. In the process they look to their fellow righties like fine soldiers standing side by side with them in the war against the liberals. I suppose there is something admirable to be found there even if in practice it's repugnant.

On the flip side those who consider themselves liberals are healthily divided between those who blindly support the Democratic ranks, and those who still hold Democrats feet to the fire.

While I find the use of the term "un-American" rather trite, if I were to apply such a term it would rest easily on the shoulders of those Democratic supporters who not only follow blindly but look upon what I consider true liberals with scorn be cause they are unwilling to compromise their principles.

If there are true patriots on the right they so fear backlash that they'll gobble gobble with the rest of the turkeys. Patriots on the left do not live under the same fear.

This really does look like a Scott Dolan post, if only because of phrasing and a particular punctuation style.

[GoodSpeak]

This really does look like a Scott Dolan post, if only because of phrasing and a particular punctuation style.

Don't feed the troll.

[GoodSpeak]

I'd have turned them into grease spots.

So, basically, you're just full of blabber.

You know, it takes absolutely no talent to just sit back and bitch, Lenny.

To wit:

Both the radical right and the looney left hate Obama, blame the Democrats for everything since Moses, won't compromise on anything and have no meaningful solutions for all the stuff they bitch about 24-7-365.

[LennyH]

So, basically, you're just full of blabber.

You know, it takes absolutely no talent to just sit back and bitch, Lenny.

To wit:

Do me a favor and point out where I implied that I hate Obama or said that he was a neocon.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

You didn't lick Obama's ass.

Therefore you're a flaming neocon.

And a racist to boot.

[crawjo]

If the two major parties merely swallow up the various groups like the Tea Party and the many little groups on the left and whip them into line then the people will have to find a way of creating viable third parties (maybe a fourth or fifth party).

You have any ideas on how to get around the black holes known as the Republican and Democratic Parties?

I think the problem is the electoral college and the winner take all system. If you changed the electoral college so that each congressional district was winner take all, rather than each state, that would give more of an opportunity for third parties to emerge that could help decide an election. On the left it could be the Green Party, on the right the Tea Party or some other party that could compete for electors at the local level, where they are strongest. Then if neither of the major parties wins 270 votes in the electoral college, suddenly those small parties would have a lot more power. That would be one idea.

[GoodSpeak]

Do me a favor and point out where I implied that I hate Obama or said that he was a neocon.

Huh?

I asked you a question and you dodged it yet again.

Taking a page from Dolan's playbook are we? In short, you're full of blabber as stated before. Thanks for clearing that one up.


Don't waste my time, uh, Dolan.

[GoodSpeak]

I think the problem is the electoral college and the winner take all system. If you changed the electoral college so that each congressional district was winner take all, rather than each state, that would give more of an opportunity for third parties to emerge that could help decide an election. On the left it could be the Green Party, on the right the Tea Party or some other party that could compete for electors at the local level, where they are strongest. Then if neither of the major parties wins 270 votes in the electoral college, suddenly those small parties would have a lot more power. That would be one idea.

But wouldn't that allow for even more manipulation of the Electoral College?

TBH, I think the EC is an archaic method of decided our elections. It needs to go the way of the dinosaur.

[Gordon B]

Please.

I don't believe that for a second and neither should you.

A month or so ago, Dolan tried to engage me on a FB post on Dr. Dave's Wall. He was still spewing the radical right wing trash he always has.


Sorry. No sale.

Tim, your comment above has come up on a very recent Dr. Dave thread by the dark passenger, himself. Dolan attacks Obama from the left, you can't really believe he's a radical right winger, can you?

[Uli]

Excellent article about frontrunner Willard:

"Op-Ed Columnist
Romney Isn’t ConcernedBy PAUL KRUGMAN
If you’re an American down on your luck, Mitt Romney has a message for you: He doesn’t feel your pain. Earlier this week, Mr. Romney told a startled CNN interviewer, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.”


Faced with criticism, the candidate has claimed that he didn’t mean what he seemed to mean, and that his words were taken out of context. But he quite clearly did mean what he said. And the more context you give to his statement, the worse it gets.

First of all, just a few days ago, Mr. Romney was denying that the very programs he now says take care of the poor actually provide any significant help. On Jan. 22, he asserted that safety-net programs — yes, he specifically used that term — have “massive overhead,” and that because of the cost of a huge bureaucracy “very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.”

This claim, like much of what Mr. Romney says, was completely false: U.S. poverty programs have nothing like as much bureaucracy and overhead as, say, private health insurance companies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries. But the dishonesty of his initial claim aside, how could a candidate declare that safety-net programs do no good and declare only 10 days later that those programs take such good care of the poor that he feels no concern for their welfare?

Also, given this whopper about how safety-net programs actually work, how credible was Mr. Romney’s assertion, after expressing his lack of concern about the poor, that if the safety net needs a repair, “I’ll fix it”?

Now, the truth is that the safety net does need repair. It provides a lot of help to the poor, but not enough. Medicaid, for example, provides essential health care to millions of unlucky citizens, children especially, but many people still fall through the cracks: among Americans with annual incomes under $25,000, more than a quarter — 28.7 percent — don’t have any kind of health insurance. And, no, they can’t make up for that lack of coverage by going to emergency rooms.

Similarly, food aid programs help a lot, but one in six Americans living below the poverty line suffers from “low food security.” This is officially defined as involving situations in which “food intake was reduced at times during the year because [households] had insufficient money or other resources for food” — in other words, hunger.

So we do need to strengthen our safety net. Mr. Romney, however, wants to make the safety net weaker instead.

Specifically, the candidate has endorsed Representative Paul Ryan’s plan for drastic cuts in federal spending — with almost two-thirds of the proposed spending cuts coming at the expense of low-income Americans. To the extent that Mr. Romney has differentiated his position from the Ryan plan, it is in the direction of even harsher cuts for the poor; his Medicaid proposal appears to involve a 40 percent reduction in financing compared with current law.

So Mr. Romney’s position seems to be that we need not worry about the poor thanks to programs that he insists, falsely, don’t actually help the needy, and which he intends, in any case, to destroy.

Still, I believe Mr. Romney when he says he isn’t concerned about the poor. What I don’t believe is his assertion that he’s equally unconcerned about the rich, who are “doing fine.” After all, if that’s what he really feels, why does he propose showering them with money?

And we’re talking about a lot of money. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Romney’s tax plan would actually raise taxes on many lower-income Americans, while sharply cutting taxes at the top end. More than 80 percent of the tax cuts would go to people making more than $200,000 a year, almost half to those making more than $1 million a year, with the average member of the million-plus club getting a $145,000 tax break.

And these big tax breaks would create a big budget hole, increasing the deficit by $180 billion a year — and making those draconian cuts in safety-net programs necessary.

Which brings us back to Mr. Romney’s lack of concern. You can say this for the former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital executive: He is opening up new frontiers in American politics. Even conservative politicians used to find it necessary to pretend that they cared about the poor. Remember “compassionate conservatism”? Mr. Romney has, however, done away with that pretense.

At this rate, we may soon have politicians who admit what has been obvious all along: that they don’t care about the middle class either, that they aren’t concerned about the lives of ordinary Americans, and never were.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 3, 2012, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Romney

[LennyH]

Huh?

I asked you a question and you dodged it yet again.

Taking a page from Dolan's playbook are we? In short, you're full of blabber as stated before. Thanks for clearing that one up.


Don't waste my time, uh, Dolan.

*sigh*

It's nothing personal but it's pretty clear that we can't have a rational discussion (I admit that it's my fault, baby. It's me, not you). So let's agree to disagree....on everything (including the things we really agree on).

"Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo."
-Crash Davis

[Monte Smith]

Romney Isn’t ConcernedBy PAUL KRUGMAN

PAUL KRUGMAN IS A NOB

I'm sorry. I didn't allow that sentence to be completed, so I left the impression that Paul Krugman is a nob. If the full sentence was allowed to stand, it would read "Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate." I'm either lazy or dishonest for doing that--pretty obviously the latter, wouldn't you say?

[LennyH]

PAUL KRUGMAN IS A NOB

I'm sorry. I didn't allow that sentence to be completed, so I left the impression that Paul Krugman is a nob. If the full sentence was allowed to stand, it would read "Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate." I'm either lazy or dishonest for doing that--pretty obviously the latter, wouldn't you say?

That's fucking funny, Monte. You came up with that all by yourself?

[Monte Smith]

That's fucking funny, Monte. You came up with that all by yourself?

I did, Lenny, but pretty much I am a team of experts.

[GoodSpeak]

Tim, your comment above has come up on a very recent Dr. Dave thread by the dark passenger, himself. Dolan attacks Obama from the left, you can't really believe he's a radical right winger, can you?

So, you want me to believe this manipulative jackass is a progressive? Please. He's just doing that to fire-up the progressives so they will keep doing their hater schtick regarding Obama. His goal is to unseat Obama so a conservative nut case can take his place. You can't believe a word he says, Gordon.

And I'll be dead honest with you: I wouldn't trust him as far as I could spit.

[GoodSpeak]

*sigh*

It's nothing personal but it's pretty clear that we can't have a rational discussion (I admit that it's my fault, baby. It's me, not you). So let's agree to disagree....on everything (including the things we really agree on).

"Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo."
-Crash Davis

And you couldn't answer a question at gun point, Lenny.

Arguing with you is comparable to static on the radio: A lot of noise but nothing worth listening to.

"Its like getting hit in the head with a crowbar...each and every day."
-Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men

[crawjo]

Progressives whining about Obama is about as interesting as progressives fawning over Obama.

[walto]

Monte rocks.

(Although he is a PF--see Urban Dictionary.)

[Uli]

Monte rocks.

He ranks high among my favorite wingnuts.

(Although he is a PF--see Urban Dictionary.

I admit being lazy and guess it's a Schweinsteiger in German.

[Bourne]

Monte rocks.

(Although he is a PF--see Urban Dictionary.)

On the first page I received these definitions:


PF = Poopy Fingers

When a guy fingers a girl in the ass and gets poop on his fingers. This can be a warm up to anal sex for the girl or just for kinky pleasure.


A short acronym meaning "Pretty Fucking"


Acronym for Pussy Fat


A phrase that can substitute for the word shit, sex, or fuck. It originated as an acronymn for penis fencing (a common activity engaged in by male bonobo monkeys which leads to ejaculation).


Pink Floyd


Abbreviation of the norwegian term "On The Run" (På Flukt).


Short for "prickfuck." An aggravatingly obtuse and/or stubborn asshole, usually male.

[Pete C]

I think Walt means Petit Fascist. Monte used to be a Grand Fascist.

[steve(thelil)]

I can't let the "Monte rocks" go by without commenting on Walto's pop culture reference.

As practically none of you except Pete and Walto knows (just guessing on that), Monti Rock III was an odd entertainer who often billed himself as the "rock and roll singer for adults." I remember him mostly for his appearances on the Merv Griffin show. (According to Wikipedia, he was born Joseph Montanez Jr)

I think his biggest commercial success was in the 70's, with the disco song "Get Dancin' " which he recorded under the name "Disco Tex and the Sex-O-Lettes"

So our beloved Monte - since Monte rocks - is in good company.

[Bourne]

So, you want me to believe this manipulative jackass is a progressive? Please. He's just doing that to fire-up the progressives so they will keep doing their hater schtick regarding Obama. His goal is to unseat Obama so a conservative nut case can take his place. You can't believe a word he says, Gordon.

And I'll be dead honest with you: I wouldn't trust him as far as I could spit.

Progressives who are disappointed with the lies Obama has presented them want to unseat him for an even bigger liar and crackpot?

You must enjoy the lies and that's fine by me. But the paranoia is over the top.

[steve(thelil)]

Progressives who are disappointed with the lies Obama has presented them want to unseat him for an even bigger liar and crackpot?

You must enjoy the lies and that's fine by me. But the paranoia is over the top.

Bourne you dupe. You didn't know that progressives are just a front for the hard line right wing agenda? Shame on you.