Republican Presidential Candidate 2012 - Pt 2

[Dr Dave]

Sounds like Obama is a Republican.

No, he lacks the necessary sexist snarl. And, thankfully, he's a hypocrite. He may have his tongue up Jamie Dimon's ass, but at least he doesn't shout it from the rooftops.

Otherwise, yeah. He has taken many of Bush's worst policies and made them objects of bipartisan support. Eric Holder made a speech the other day about how the Administration has the right to assassinate Americans as long as a panel of secret somebodies recommends it to the President. No arrest, no subpoena, no reading of Miranda rights, no court, no nothing. And the President doesn't have to say who gets killed and doesn't have to say why. If Alberto Gonzales had made that speech, DC would be full of demonstrators. But Eric Holder made the speech, so it's okay. Presto! There's no opposition, there's no pushback, because Good Democrats Support Their President No Matter What, because if we don't get behind the President we risk President Santorum.

It's a fantastic game, really. The Republicans put up lunatics, Obama looks like a Wise Centrist, and the beat goes on.

[ran]

No, he lacks the necessary sexist snarl. And, thankfully, he's a hypocrite. He may have his tongue up Jamie Dimon's ass, but at least he doesn't shout it from the rooftops.

Otherwise, yeah. He has taken many of Bush's worst policies and made them objects of bipartisan support. Eric Holder made a speech the other day about how the Administration has the right to assassinate Americans as long as a panel of secret somebodies recommends it to the President. No arrest, no subpoena, no reading of Miranda rights, no court, no nothing. And the President doesn't have to say who gets killed and doesn't have to say why. If Alberto Gonzales had made that speech, DC would be full of demonstrators. But Eric Holder made the speech, so it's okay. Presto! There's no opposition, there's no pushback, because Good Democrats Support Their President No Matter What, because if we don't get behind the President we risk President Santorum.

It's a fantastic game, really. The Republicans put up lunatics, Obama looks like a Wise Centrist, and the beat goes on.

I hate you Doc. Why did you have to go and make sense of it all. I hate you , you fucked things up.

[Bourne]

No, he lacks the necessary sexist snarl. And, thankfully, he's a hypocrite. He may have his tongue up Jamie Dimon's ass, but at least he doesn't shout it from the rooftops.

Otherwise, yeah. He has taken many of Bush's worst policies and made them objects of bipartisan support. Eric Holder made a speech the other day about how the Administration has the right to assassinate Americans as long as a panel of secret somebodies recommends it to the President. No arrest, no subpoena, no reading of Miranda rights, no court, no nothing. And the President doesn't have to say who gets killed and doesn't have to say why. If Alberto Gonzales had made that speech, DC would be full of demonstrators. But Eric Holder made the speech, so it's okay. Presto! There's no opposition, there's no pushback, because Good Democrats Support Their President No Matter What, because if we don't get behind the President we risk President Santorum.

It's a fantastic game, really. The Republicans put up lunatics, Obama looks like a Wise Centrist, and the beat goes on.

The hypocrisy of the Democratic party is exceeded only by that of the Republican party.

[Gordon B]

Everybody loves to hate politicians but the politicians would be better if the voters were smarter.

How many people think global warming is a worrisome problem but want lower gasoline prices?

How many people think the country is headed to a debt crisis one day but don't want to limit entitlement spending?

[Uli]

.

Otherwise, yeah. He has taken many of Bush's worst policies and made them objects of bipartisan support. Eric Holder made a speech the other day about how the Administration has the right to assassinate Americans as long as a panel of secret somebodies recommends it to the President. No arrest, no subpoena, no reading of Miranda rights, no court, no nothing. And the President doesn't have to say who gets killed and doesn't have to say why. If Alberto Gonzales had made that speech, DC would be full of demonstrators. But Eric Holder made the speech, so it's okay. Presto! There's no opposition, there's no pushback, because Good Democrats Support Their President No Matter What, because if we don't get behind the President we risk President Santorum.

.

You can call me a hypocrite you can call me outrage fatigued or blame it on my status a resident alien. The fact that they killed that guy in Yemen is just a piss poor case to argue constitutionality, imho. What's the predident supposed to do when the CIA submit their list of extra judicial killings that require presidential approval. Say, all those Pakistanis and Afghanis are ok but not this guy, he has an American passport?

In my neighborhood American teenagers kill each other every nite because the constitutional right to bear firearms apparently makes it impossible to prevent that guns get into the wrong hands.

[crawjo]

You can call me a hypocrite you can call me outrage fatigued or blame it on my status a resident alien. The fact that they killed that guy in Yemen is just a piss poor case to argue constitutionality, imho. What's the predident supposed to do when the CIA submit their list of extra judicial killings that require presidential approval. Say, all those Pakistanis and Afghanis are ok but not this guy, he has an American passport?

In my neighborhood American teenagers kill each other every nite because the constitutional right to bear firearms apparently makes it impossible to prevent that guns get into the wrong hands.

The one thing that liberals complain about with regards to Obama that doesn't bother me is the targeted assassination of American citizens. I don't think that my American citizenship should protect me from the consequences of American imperialism. Indeed, the world would probably be a better place if Obama killed more American citizens, because then at least people would pay attention to what was happening.

[Uli]

I think what gets on my nerve is that Americans behave like the US is the only fucking country in the world that has a constitution. Guess what the Greek have one too but does it matter when creditors want to get paid?

[Bourne]

In my neighborhood American teenagers kill each other every nite because the constitutional right to bear firearms apparently makes it impossible to prevent that guns get into the wrong hands.

And we can say with certainty that each of those guns are legally registered.

I am not a gun person. Never owned one. Have no use for one. But the Republican meme "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will own guns" does have some validity.

[crawjo]

I think most studies comparing countries with different gun laws show that liberal gun laws lead to more violence. That seems obvious to me, from a simple psychological perspective. Aside from accidental shootings, I tend to think that anyone who owns a gun will more than likely use it if the situation presents itself, which could lead to needless violence.

[Bourne]

Does the United Kingdom still have a higher rate of violent crime?

[Bourne]

Also -

if the situation presents itself, which could lead to needless violence.

These two statements contradict each other.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Does the United Kingdom still have a higher rate of violent crime?

From 2009. Not sure about 2012


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack
UPDATED: 18:14 EST, 2 July 2009



Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.


The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:


The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.


The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

'We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction.'

The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

[stonemonkts]

Here is a comparison between US and UK.

[rollhead]

It's my understanding that gun ownership in Switzerland is about the highest in the world, but gun violence is among the lowest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Similiarly, in the United States, gun ownership is very high in Vermont, but gun violence is low.

[Uli]

It's my understanding that gun ownership in Switzerland is about the highest in the world, but gun violence is among the lowest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Ok, I concede. It's not the guns. It's those damn Anglo-Saxons and comparing Obama's foreign policy to Bush's foreign policy is like comparing Swiss to Anglo-Saxons.


edit I posted this before I read stoney's linked info. Sorry, I should have sed that comparing Obama's foreign policy to Bush's foreign policy is about as absurd as to compare violent crimes in the UK and the US.

[GoodSpeak]

Not a fair comparison.


There is a causational link between the proliferation of hand guns in the US vs. gun related deaths.

Vermont and Switzerland, being each a very small assemblage of people, would not have the same environmental and cultural deprivations to be a reasonable sampling of a given population with regard to guns and violence in America; a far larger population of people/gun owners.

[jesus marion joseph]

It's my understanding that gun ownership in Switzerland is about the highest in the world, but gun violence is among the lowest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Similiarly, in the United States, gun ownership is very high in Vermont, but gun violence is low.

Not sure about Switzerland, but they grow some kind bud in Vermont. No need to get all violent when everybody's getting' high...

[Monte Smith]

We've all heard about the Rev Pat Robertson coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana, yes? Happened this week. To me, this is a game changer. It totally ends the debate. I don't know if weed will be legalized, but I think that people will stop talking about it, as who wants to get high with Pat Robertson?

Yuk yuk yuk. Bong hit. [Coughing jag].

What if human beings were made out of dishwashers?

[Bourne]

They would break down after 10 years? Maybe less?

Now ceiling fans. That would be another story.

Upside? They'd have an extra limb.

[Dr Dave]

Everybody loves to hate politicians but the politicians would be better if the voters were smarter.

How many people think global warming is a worrisome problem but want lower gasoline prices?

How many people think the country is headed to a debt crisis one day but don't want to limit entitlement spending?

What would it take to make voters smarter? Whatever it might be, it better not involve taxes. Taxes are bad, because they make rich people mad, and if rich people get mad, they might just leave, and then where would we be?

If gasoline prices were to go up and stay up--let's say a $3/gal tax--then gasoline demand would ease, and Magical Mr. Market would adapt to the new reality by making high-mileage vehicles available at prices ordinary drivers could afford. (I'd suggest improvements in mass transport, but that would require actual political leadership, and economists don't do political leadership anyway, correct?) There would be much near-term pain, of course, but you know, lazy Americans will just have to suck it up. Besides, if gasoline demand really falls, then not only will we ease the burden on the atmosphere, we won't have to continue making war in the Middle East, and surely that will create a savings. People will understand. Won't they?

Well, probably not, as long as Exxon-Mobil and the rest of the gang continue their long-term leases on various elected representatives. After all, corporations are people, although they are clearly a lot smarter than regular people, because they have so much more money. Money which they can use not only to lease elected officials, but to advertise to voters how they are actually in favor of a cleaner environment. Even smart people are known to be susceptible to advertising, especially lots and lots of advertising. Which leads me to think that it won't be enough to have "smarter" voters, when there is so much money at stake in getting them to believe things that are not really true.

As for the debt crisis and entitlements, that's not worth dignifying with an answer. As you are not merely smart but very smart, there is no need to rehearse the various arguments. There is no hope whatsoever for very smart people who believe Alan Simpson.

[Bourne]

I am torn on such a gas tax, Dr. Dave. On one hand I agree it is a necessity if we want to force the markets hand. Even though there does seem to be a larger number of fuel efficient cars now. On the other hand the downside of that tax is that it will place the heaviest burden on the wrong people. It would kill the working poor and severely damage a large percentage of the working middle class.

Meanwhile back at the ranch those rolling in dough just have a little less to roll around in.

[crawjo]

I am torn on such a gas tax, Dr. Dave. On one hand I agree it is a necessity if we want to force the markets hand. Even though there does seem to be a larger number of fuel efficient cars now. On the other hand the downside of that tax is that it will place the heaviest burden on the wrong people. It would kill the working poor and severely damage a large percentage of the working middle class.

Meanwhile back at the ranch those rolling in dough just have a little less to roll around in.

I think a gas tax makes good policy sense overall, but I wouldn't institute one now. The unemployment rate is still high and economic growth is relatively weak. Adding a regressive tax like a gas tax could easily throw the economy further off course.

[walto]

Hey, Crawjo, could you comment on that Uganda vid rollie posted on his chumming thread?

Thanks.

[Bourne]

I think a gas tax makes good policy sense overall, but I wouldn't institute one now. The unemployment rate is still high and economic growth is relatively weak. Adding a regressive tax like a gas tax could easily throw the economy further off course.

So those who live paycheck to paycheck should be thrown into financial distress? There are many people in this country who simply could not afford such a tax hike.

"Damn them" is good policy sense?

[crawjo]

So those who live paycheck to paycheck should be thrown into financial distress? There are many people in this country who simply could not afford such a tax hike.

"Damn them" is good policy sense?

At some point we have to wean ourselves off the addiction to cheap oil and create market incentives for creating better transportation infrastructure and more fuel-efficient vehicles. Again, I would not advocate doing this now because of the current state of the economy, but in other economic circumstances I would be in favor of it. This is an environmental issue.

[Bourne]

It is a survival issue.

Changes must be made incrementally if people are to survive it. You do not slap a $3 tax on current gas prices. That would destroy the working class.

I can tell from your recent posts you are not above massive destruction for a little conservation.

[GoodSpeak]

It is a survival issue.

Changes must be made incrementally if people are to survive it. You do not slap a $3 tax on current gas prices. That would destroy the working class.

I can tell from your recent posts you are not above massive destruction for a little conservation.

A three dollar tax?


I've not heard anything along these lines.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Santorum wins the Kansas caucuses, BUT Romney triumphs in the pivotal Northern Mariana Islands caucuses.

[GoodSpeak]

Good news...?

[Bourne]

A three dollar tax?


I've not heard anything along these lines.

Dr. Dave mentioned it in his post above. Likely just a blue sky solution. One I cannot agree with. So many people in this country survive paycheck to paycheck. To put hundreds of dollars of extra burden on them in one fell swoop would be disastrous.