Who will take on Obama in 2012?

[will.15]

By the way, here is what politicans running for the Senate do when their "prinipled" position on civil rights becomes a hot potato and in a very conservative state:



May 21, 2010
The Stunning Speed of Rand Paul’s Civil Rights Act Flip-Flop

This post originally appeared on the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/).

It all started with a simple, 11-word question: “Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?” The question was posed by the editors of the Louisville Courier-Journal to Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.


The answer proved problematic — Paul says he’s opposed to discrimination, but also opposes laws that impose restrictions on free enterprise. The Civil Rights Act went too far, Paul argued, when it mandated requirements on private entities. That’s what he told Courier-Journal, NPR, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and it’s consistent with what he wrote in 2002 when he articulated his opposition to the Fair Housing Act for the same reasons.

Indeed, Rachel specifically asked Paul if a private business should be able to refuse service to black people. The Republican candidate replied, “Yes.”

And then the evolution of Rand Paul kicked into overdrive.
Over the course of 24 hours, Paul went from opposing the Civil Rights Act to opposing repeal of the Civil Rights Act to considering the Civil Rights Act settled law to actually supporting the legislation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/20/paul-news-cycle-has-gotten-out-of-control/?fbid=XAjS5FoZMmI) he said he would have opposed.
[Paul] said he would have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act if he were in the Senate at the time, calling the racial climate at the time “a stain on the South and our history.”
“There was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the Sixties,” he said. “The Southern states weren’t correcting it, and there was a need for federal intervention.”
Presented again with the original question that got him in trouble in the first place, the Kentucky Republican said, “Yes, I would have voted yes” on the Civil Rights Act.

As political flip-flops go, Rand Paul’s reversal is one for the books. “Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?” He had a very specific answer before yesterday, which he’d articulated on multiple occasions, over the course of many years. It just happens to be the exact opposite of the position he endorsed while on CNN.

It appears that Paul had a choice: defend his deeply held principles and try to convince voters of the merit of his ideas, or abandon those principles when they became politically problematic and put his Senate bid in jeopardy. Paul has obviously made his decision.

[Warren'sShampoo]

As you hint at above, most of the protesters are not saying this, but some sure are. Regardless, if it's a straw man to defend the idea that business should have a voice in government, then it's an empty truism to say that the problem with capitalism is only its abuses. Nobody disagrees with that, but find me a coherent policy suggestion from the Wall St. protesters that involves anything half as targeted as that. Because insofar as we're hearing anything coherent at all (and for the most part, we're not), it sure seems like a general "eat the rich" ideology that wants to raise taxes and regulations across the board, without regard for who's abusing things and who isn't.

Almost nobody is for corruption. The question is how you respond to it. And for most of the left, the response has been to issue blanket condemnations on entire industries, and dole out the punishments with just as little precision.

Protestors aren't required to formulate policy, just to express their frustration. Shouting "less government" at a Tea Party rally (while simultaneously living off your Social Security and Medicare checks, demanding government intervention on such issues as abortion and marriage, and calling for an aggressive, intrusive foreign policy) isn't exactly a policy prescription, either.

[Yoda]

Protestors aren't required to formulate policy, just to express their frustration. Shouting "less government" at a Tea Party rally (while simultaneously living off your Social Security and Medicare checks, demanding government intervention on such issues as abortion and marriage, and calling for an aggressive, intrusive foreign policy) isn't exactly a policy prescription, either.
No, but I found the Tea Party protests to be far more cohesive and focused. And as you point out, they had a unifying demand, vague as it sometimes was. The OWS crowd has, at best, a unifying complaint, which is obviously one step below.

But anyway, the post you were replying to was not me criticizing them for not having specific demands, it was me criticizing them for having demands that were too broad, which isn't exactly the same thing. It wasn't the old "they haven't even said what they want!" saw (though I think that has plenty of validity, in another sense). It was "what they want is to punish indiscriminately for specific crimes."

Also, the parenthetical swipe you take at Tea Partiers about SS and Medicare and whatnot has already been raised in this thread several times. I don't blame you for not reading this opus of a thread, mind you, but Will's mentioned it more than once despite the fact that I've offered a pretty unobjectionable retort each time: there's nothing contradictory at all about wanting the entitlements you've already paid for, even if you recognize their long-term insolvency.

It stems from the very common, very easily refutable polemic that tries to manufacture a contradiction between conservative demands for "less government," juxtaposed with those areas where they think it is necessary. It's no contradiction at all, because "less government" is shorthand, and is not meant to mean "less government in absolutely every instance." If anything, this attempt to make these positions seem hypocritical inadvertently demonstrates that they're reasonable folks, because they're not advocating less government across-the-board, but are perfectly willing to recognize that some issues require it. The disagreement is about which and when and why, obviously.

[Yoda]

I said something isn't true until it is proven to be true within the context of a political position.

You said it is true irregardless of that.

Nobody was talking about specific ideology or positions.
Yes, truth exists regardless. When you say something isn't "true" until you win and "prove" it, you're using a nonsensical definition of the word "truth." As we've established (though it took a depressingly long time to get you to kind of/sort of admit it), truth is not determined by popularity. Ergo, something is not made true by political viability. Ergo, the statement is false.

In other words, saying "well, it may be true, but that won't matter if you can't sell it" is a perfectly reasonable statement. But "it's not true unless you sell it" is a rubbish statement. It's an important distinction and if you examine any of your posts on this matter, I think you'll find it's one you haven't generally made.

In the context of Rick Perry and the debates, that he was right but not good at presenting his position, what makes this on reflection rather strange, these debates have never focused on Rick Perry's most controverial positions, he has gotten into trouble on vaccines and in-state tuition. How was he right on those things? But in the broader area of right or wrong in politics, I really don't understand your position at all. The political process is how ideas are vetted and accepted. If you can't sell it, you can't implement it and prove you have the better idea. Libertarians think they have a better approach to governmnt, but if they can't convince people to elect them to prove it, they have no way to prove they are right.
I already responded to this in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770448):

"Say what? First of all, you're saying here that you can prove yourself right just by winning, which is patently false. Second, that would contradict what you said above, which is that you can never be proven right. And third, if by "prove" you just mean "provide evidence for," then of course you can "prove" you were right without being in power, because the policies based on opposite principles can fail. Like, for example, right now."
This discussion is actually quite simple: truth is not determined by how well it persuades someone. End of argument. Either you dispute that (good luck), or everything you're saying is just a weird, convoluted mess of convenient redefinitions.

[Yoda]

He has had this plan since he announced and it isn't until he shot up in the polls and everyone started to actually look at it and poke holes in it that he starts changing it. And he has been very erratic in many of his other statements in the last week or so. He is a nice man, but he doesn't look like he can cut it in a presidential race. The odds were already against him because of the money factor and this makes competing with Romney in the early states even harder. Now Romney is changing strategy and will actually campaign harder in Iowa. Iowans seem real resistant to him so I don't know if he can win. But he could do a strong second over whoever comes in first (still Cain?), but Romney now looks like a steamroller in New Hampshire. Can Perry recover? I personally wasn't impressed with him attacking Romney for indirectly hiring illegal gardeners for his home, but some pundits think that was successful. The problem I see is an aggressive Perry brings out his inherent meanness. He looked like he was going to hit Romney at one point. So Perry came out with his energy policy, which is basically let the oil companies drill on all the federal land they want except national parks and the Everglades (I am surprised he made that exception). And he is coming out for a flat tax, which was so successful for Steve Forbes when he ran. I think it won't change anything because of one thing, in-state tuition. Republicans are more unforgiving about that than they are about Romneycare. If Cain folds, maybe Perry can take some Southern states (I still find it hard to think Romney could take North Carolina and, oh, they always pick the winner), but even if he does that he is now strictly a regional candidate and probably a narrow regional candidate in mostly just the deep, deep South.
Man, you must be, like, allergic to responding to the things actually said to you. What I said was this:

"... isn't it kind of refreshing that he's responding to valid criticism? The fact that candidates are afraid to change their minds because they'll be torn apart for it is a consistent impediment to improving ideas."
Your response is that a) to repeat that he changed his plan, b) to say he's been "erratic," and c) to speculate as to his long-term political prospects.

Either you don't know how discussions work, or you're not interested in having them, because you seem to just answer whatever question or argument you feel like answering, rather than the one presented to you.

[will.15]

Yes, truth exists regardless. When you say something isn't "true" until you win and "prove" it, you're using a nonsensical definition of the word "truth." As we've established (though it took a depressingly long time to get you to kind of/sort of admit it), truth is not determined by popularity. Ergo, something is not made true by political viability. Ergo, the statement is false.

In other words, saying "well, it may be true, but that won't matter if you can't sell it" is a perfectly reasonable statement. But "it's not true unless you sell it" is a rubbish statement. It's an important distinction and if you examine any of your posts on this matter, I think you'll find it's one you haven't generally made.


I already responded to this in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770448):
"Say what? First of all, you're saying here that you can prove yourself right just by winning, which is patently false. Second, that would contradict what you said above, which is that you can never be proven right. And third, if by "prove" you just mean "provide evidence for," then of course you can "prove" you were right without being in power, because the policies based on opposite principles can fail. Like, for example, right now."

Your last statement is false. We don't know if the Republican alternative would have been more successful. There is every reason to believe the desire by many Republicans to do nothing to bail out the banks would have resulted in more unemployment. We might have a depression on our hand right now. Can I prove it? No, but you can't disprove it. Many economists think the stimulus prevented unemployment from beiing worse than it is. Can I prove it? No, and you can't disprove it. If Republicans are elected and implement their policies and during the first two years unemployment does not improve or just marginally, a half percent, or even get worse, what would you say then? No, you can't prove by any means that because one approach doesn't reduce unemployment it means another approach will, like everything is either/or. That is absurd.

[Yoda]

Your last statement is false. We don't know if the Republican alternative would have been more successful. There is every reason to believe the desire by many Republicans to do nothing to bail out the banks would have resulted in more unemployment. We might have a depression on our hand right now. Can I prove it? No, but you can't disprove it. Many economists think the stimulus prevented unemployment from beiing worse than it is. Can I prove it? No, and you can't disprove it. If Republicans are elected and implement their policies and during the first two years unemployment does not improve or just marginally, a half percent, or even get worse, what would you say then? No, you can't prove by any means that because one approach doesn't reduce unemployment it means another approach will, like everything is either/or. That is absurd.
Clearly, you didn't read the post. I was using your definition of the word "prove," which is why I put it in quotation marks, and why in the very same sentence I prefaced its use with this, just to head off one of your possible alternate definitions:

"... if by "prove" you just mean 'provide evidence for,'
I didn't make the argument that you can prove one approach works by showing that another does not, and I don't believe that. But I believe you can glean evidence from such things, and I believe that the statement works fine if we assume your own definition of the word, which equates validity with viability. Which, by the by, was what the first (ignored) half of the post was arguing, and laid out in very clear terms.

And you'd still be wrong, anyway, because not every policy position is a positive statement. When a Keynesian stimulus fails, it does not necessarily support the idea that tax cuts will lead to growth. But it does support the idea that the stimulus is/was a bad idea. Each ideology is not only a series of claims about what works, but also a series of claims about what doesn't, so you can absolutely amass evidence for your ideology even when you're out of power, by predicting something will fail, and then being right.

It's also quite amusing that you're slowly but surely ending up on the other side of your own previous argument. I think there's little disputing that, when one party fails, people start to give more credence to the positions of the other. Yet you're arguing that, even though this is the political perception, that doesn't make them right. Sound familiar?

[will.15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=773794#post773794)
I said something isn't true until it is proven to be true within the context of a political position.

You said it is true irregardless of that.

Nobody was talking about specific ideology or positions.

Yes, truth exists regardless. When you say something isn't "true" until you win and "prove" it, you're using a nonsensical definition of the word "truth." As we've established (though it took a depressingly long time to get you to kind of/sort of admit it), truth is not determined by popularity. Ergo, something is not made true by political viability. Ergo, the statement is false.

In other words, saying "well, it may be true, but that won't matter if you can't sell it" is a perfectly reasonable statement. But "it's not true unless you sell it" is a rubbish statement. It's an important distinction and if you examine any of your posts on this matter, I think you'll find it's one you haven't generally made.



What you are saying is rubbish. There is no truth in politics because there are no facts. Revisionist historians make up facts or interpret events to suit their ideology making it impossible at times to prove much of anything. Mainstream historians look at the Great Depression and see laissez faire as a failure. Revisionist conservatives will look at it and argue the opposite. Whose truth do we accept? Depends on your ideology, but ultimately the New Deal approach won because Franklin Roosevelt won four terms. Then the Reagan Revolution came around and he was successful, then a correction occurred when Clinton was elected. And so on. Where is the irreversible truth in any of this? In certain situations a more conservative solution may be more appropriate and others a more liberal one. Sometimes the electorate gets tired of one approach and other times they want to try something else. They get disillusioned with one party and vote for the other party. Where is the truth in any of that except the American people are not interested in trying a more radical approach, like libertarianism or socialism or fascism. That is the only truth. Everything else is in flux and has no truth. The political process in a democracy is the only truth.

And you never answered what is Rick Perry right about? What did he say in the debate that was so right? What he got into trouble with was , I will say it again, was in-state tuition which most Democrats and Republican voters don't like. He is right about that because according to him, if you disagree you have no heart? His forced vaccine plan, which he tried to shove through by bypassing the legislature? Oh, he admits he was wrong to do that, but claims he did it after meeting a woman he didn't actually meet until after he already did it? Where is the truth in Rick Perry's positions in his pathetic debate performance? Rick Perry has been such a disaster that William Kristol abandoned him after the third debate after he promoted him as the alternative to Romney, and the very conservative Michelle Malkin completely ridiculed him after that debate. Public opinion is also a truth, but it is a shifting one and right now the truth is Rick Perry is unelectable as a Presidential candidate because he cannot sell himself to the people most sympathetic to his beliefs. Debates and campaigns are not just about beliefs, it is also about character and Perry has been a bust on that level.

[will.15]

Clearly, you didn't read the post. I was using your definition of the word "prove," which is why I put it in quotation marks, and why in the very same sentence I prefaced its use with this, just to head off one of your possible alternate definitions:
"... if by "prove" you just mean 'provide evidence for,'
I didn't make the argument that you can prove one approach works by showing that another does not, and I don't believe that. But I believe you can glean evidence from such things, and I believe that the statement works fine if we assume your own definition of the word, which equates validity with viability. Which, by the by, was what the first (ignored) half of the post was arguing, and laid out in very clear terms.

And you'd still be wrong, anyway, because not every policy position is a positive statement. When a Keynesian stimulus fails, it does not necessarily support the idea that tax cuts will lead to growth. But it does support the idea that the stimulus is/was a bad idea. Each ideology is not only a series of claims about what works, but also a series of claims about what doesn't, so you can absolutely amass evidence for your ideology even when you're out of power, by predicting something will fail, and then being right.

It's also quite amusing that you're slowly but surely ending up on the other side of your own previous argument. I think there's little disputing that, when one party fails, people start to give more credence to the positions of the other. Yet you're arguing that, even though this is the political perception, that doesn't make them right. Sound familiar?
Supply side may or not have failed in this instance. Can you prove unemployment would not be higher without it? No. And what I said about one party winning over the other does not put me on your side of the argument. Not at all. Are you conceding I am right? I am exactly where I started, the political process determines truth, but it is truth of the moment. If the people turn against one political party and one approach over time and then turns to the other party and go back and forth, where is the truth? Proof of truth would be one party always winning because their approach will have proven to be the right one. But we go through economic cycles no matter what party is in power. And the party in power is replaced by another. So where is the rock bottom truth that one policy is truer than another?

[Yoda]

EDIT: after seeing that last reply, you can consider the first half of this response a response to both, since you're saying the same thing in both.

What you are saying is rubbish. There is no truth in politics because there are no facts. Revisionist historians make up facts or interpret events to suit their ideology making it impossible at times to prove much of anything.
Executive summary: "people argue for conflicting things, so I'm deciding nothing is ever true." The fact that people present conflicting evidence is not an argument against anything being true, it's simply an observation that the truth can be hard to get at. You're noticing that people can argue persuasively for conflicting things, and your response is to just throw your hands up and say there "are no facts." Then what the crap do you bother arguing for? The mere existence of arguments about facts presupposes that there are facts which can be argued for.

Why do you ever provide any links or any attempt at providing evidence for anything you say? Why do you ever try to buttress any opinion with any kind of source or data or anything else? Why ever argue about any facts at all? Your behavior is wildly inconsistent on this point. You have argued that things are definitively false a number of times, yet here you argue that nothing is true or false. Whatever suits the argument at hand, I suppose.

And you never answered what is Rick Perry right about? What did he say in the debate that was so right? What he got into trouble with was , I will say it again, was in-state tuition which most Democrats and Republican voters don't like. He is right about that because according to him, if you disagree you have no heart? His forced vaccine plan, which he tried to shove through by bypassing the legislature? Oh, he admits he was wrong to do that, but claims he did it after meeting a woman he didn't actually meet until after he already did it? Where is the truth in Rick Perry's positions in his pathetic debate performance? Rick Perry has been such a disaster that William Kristol abandoned him after the third debate after he promoted him as the alternative to Romney, and the very conservative Michelle Malkin completely ridiculed him after that debate. Public opinion is also a truth, but it is a shifting one and right now the truth is Rick Perry is unelectable as a Presidential candidate because he cannot sell himself to the people most sympathetic to his beliefs. Debates and campaigns are not just about beliefs, it is also about character and Perry has been a bust on that level.
You're all tied up in knots, man: I said Rick Perry was right that people care too much about debate performances, not that he was right in the debates. You need to learn to distinguish between statements and speakers, and between arguments and the people who make them. The fact that Perry might have had a bad performance even by the right metrics doesn't mean he's wrong about which ones people rely on too much. Perry is the source of this argument, not the topic.

[will.15]

Man, you must be, like, allergic to responding to the things actually said to you. What I said was this:
"... isn't it kind of refreshing that he's responding to valid criticism? The fact that candidates are afraid to change their minds because they'll be torn apart for it is a consistent impediment to improving ideas."
Your response is that a) to repeat that he changed his plan, b) to say he's been "erratic," and c) to speculate as to his long-term political prospects.

Either you don't know how discussions work, or you're not interested in having them, because you seem to just answer whatever question or argument you feel like answering, rather than the one presented to you.
Discussions work by discussing anything that gets discussed. You hardly focus strictly on comments I make, but you think that is what I should do with ever comment you make. You had one reaction to Cain's flip flop and I had another. You see he is being refreshing, I see someone who is getting hammered by attacks to a plan that has been the centerpiece of his campaign ever since he got into the race and the realization if he didn't make some major changes he has no chance of getting the nomination. Why didn't he see the problem with his 9 9 9 before this? It is refreshing to tout an economic policy without vetting it?

[Yoda]

Discussions work by discussing anything that gets discussed. You hardly focus strictly on comments I make, but you think that is what I should do with ever comment you make.
No, I think you should respond to arguments made directly to you. Which I do the overwhelming majority of the time with the arguments or responses you direct straight at me. If your response was not meant to reply to what I said, why would you quote me in it?

You had one reaction to Cain's flip flop and I had another. You see he is being refreshing, I see someone who is getting hammered by attacks to a plan that has been the centerpiece of his campaign ever since he got into the race and the realization if he didn't make some major changes he has no chance of getting the nomination. Why didn't he see the problem with his 9 9 9 before this? It is refreshing to tout an economic policy without vetting it?
No, it's refreshing to be willing to change your mind when you ought to, rather than stubbornly stick by something because you'd rather look consistent than have the best plan you can. The two are not mutually exclusive. The current political climate values consistency--even when wrong--far more than it values open-mindedness and adaptability. I think that's a problem. When I said this, your response was to talk about something else. Which you have a right to do, certainly, but which I find weird, particularly when you addressed your response to me.

[will.15]

I am saying there is no permanent truth in politics. And I disagree with certain positions you take because they are opinions I disagree with. I don't agree with your truths, but there is no objective, rock hard unchangeable truth in the context of the political process. Political ideology is not the same as the law of gravity.

[will.15]

You type a lot faster than I can.

[will.15]

No, I think you should respond to arguments made directly to you. Which I do the overwhelming majority of the time with the arguments or responses you direct straight at me. If your response was not meant to reply to what I said, why would you quote me in it?


No, it's refreshing to be willing to change your mind when you ought to, rather than stubbornly stick by something because you'd rather look consistent than have the best plan you can. The two are not mutually exclusive. The current political climate values consistency--even when wrong--far more than it values open-mindedness and adaptability. I think that's a problem. When I said this, your response was to talk about something else. Which you have a right to do, certainly, but which I find weird, particularly when you addressed your response to me.
Obama has not stuck to one thing. He has shifted positions and approaches. Do you admire him for that? So are you criticizing George W. Bush who was accused by critics for being stubborn. I don't see at all it is true of all politicians that they refuse to admit mistakes and change. Reagan was a liberal Democrat. Look at Romney. He changed his mind about a whole lot of things. And yet many conservative Republicans don't admire him. They don't find his flip flops refreshing.

[will.15]

You're all tied up in knots, man: I said Rick Perry was right that people care too much about debate performances, not that he was right in the debates. You need to learn to distinguish between statements and speakers, and between arguments and the people who make them. The fact that Perry might have had a bad performance even by the right metrics doesn't mean he's wrong about which ones people rely on too much. Perry is the source of this argument, not the topic.
No, that is not what you said. Go back and see. You were not quoting Rick Perry. You were quoting your father and he said something about Rick Perry being right on the issues, but he was a poor debater. I am doing this from memory, but I'll bet you a buck that was the comment you made. And of course Rick Perry would say what he said because he is getting killed in these debates. Even when he does a little better he makes poor choices like hammering Romney on something trivial, his landscapers, which were not directly hired by him with no evidence he knew they were illegal immigrants. How does that equate with giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition, essentially a government subsidy? By the way, now something has come out about Romney and illegals Perry could go after him for, but does he have the brains to figure that out if his people don't point it out to him? If you are a very inept debater, it will be real hard to get elected to the presidency. Debates have become standard, and nobody has been elected that was generally viewed as failing to win or draw in most of his presidential debates against his challenger in the general election. Al Gore blew the first debate with Bush big time by acting like a prick and he never fully recovered in the next two. That is why he lost. Yeah, you can say he almost won, but with a stronger performance he may have actually won.

[7thson]

Since when are there two cups of sugar in a picture of koolaid?

[will.15]

More evidence Rick Perry is a garbage bag:


Texas Gov. Rick Perry said (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/25/352403/perry-birther-good-issue/) the birther issue was worth "keeping alive" in a CNBC interview Tuesday morning. "It's a good issue to keep alive. It's fun to poke at him," said Perry, according (https://twitter.com/#!/JohnJHarwood/status/128773711036809216) to host John Harwood.
Perry also spoke evasively about President Barack Obama's birth certificate in an interview with Parade magazine (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/rick-perry-obama-birth-certificate_n_1027123.html) published over the weekend. When asked if he believed the president was born in the United States, he said, "I have no reason to think otherwise." Asked why he didn't give a definitive answer, Perry replied, "Well, I don't have a definitive answer, because he's never seen my birth certificate."
Perry said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=74GCyAMDKmk) in the CNBC interview, "I'm really not worried about the president's birth certificate. It's fun to poke at him a little bit and say, how 'bout let's see your grades and your birth certificate." Perry's own transcript from Texas A&M University, obtained by The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html), shows that he seldom earned anything above a C and includes a D in Shakespeare and a C in gym.
Despite the president releasing his long-form (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-r_n_854248.html) birth certificate online showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, some still doubt that Obama was born in the United States, and therefore eligible serve as commander-in-chief.
When asked by Parade if he'd seen the president's birth certificate, Perry said: "I don't know. Have I?"
Perry said that he had met with Donald Trump, and the issue came up, but he wouldn't say whether he agreed with Trump, who still doubts the veracity of the document. "I don't have any idea. It doesn't matter. He's the president of the United States. He's elected. It's a distractive issue."
Karl Rove blasted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/karl-rove-rick-perry-birther_n_1028471.html) Perry on Monday for not giving a straight answer on the birther issue and therefore associating himself with a "nutty fringe group."

[Yoda]

I am saying there is no permanent truth in politics. And I disagree with certain positions you take because they are opinions I disagree with. I don't agree with your truths, but there is no objective, rock hard unchangeable truth in the context of the political process. Political ideology is not the same as the law of gravity.
It depends on what part of an ideology we're talking about. As I mentioned before, some ideological disputes are irresolvable, but many are about hard facts. Neither party, for example, says it's against economic growth, but they do prioritize it differently. That part of the dispute may be irresolvable (I think not even then, but that's beside the point). But when they argue about what spurs it best, or in what amounts, they are making testable claims. When someone says something will drive costs up or hurt employment, that's a claim with a positive or negative factual value.

Clearly, you believe there is some kind of truth, because you argue for it, and you occasionally provide some kind of evidence. There would be no reason to do this if you actually believe that there's no such thing as truth or facts in the context of these discussions. And once we've established that some claims can be true or false, we're right back at the original question: do voters spend too much time on superficial things, as opposed to determining what they believe is true? Rick Perry says yes. His motives for saying this are self-serving, but I agree with him. I think we spend too much time arguing about how someone seemed or sounded, and not enough time analyzing the ideas they are espousing, and I think the natural consequence of doing this is that we get better and better actors, rather than better thinkers or leaders.

Do you disagree with any sentence in the above paragraph? If so, which one, and why?

You type a lot faster than I can.
Sorry about that; I guess I see no reason to wait if I know precisely what I want to say, and I was put on a typing program when I was fairly young, so it comes very quickly. It's rather like learning a language when you're younger and being fluent in it. I would probably participate in fewer discussions if typing were more laborious. Or I'd learn to be more succinct, though I take great pains to try to do that anyway. With mixed results.

Obama has not stuck to one thing. He has shifted positions and approaches. Do you admire him for that? So are you criticizing George W. Bush who was accused by critics for being stubborn. I don't see at all it is true of all politicians that they refuse to admit mistakes and change. Reagan was a liberal Democrat. Look at Romney. He changed his mind about a whole lot of things. And yet many conservative Republicans don't admire him. They don't find his flip flops refreshing.
A perfectly fair question, and my answer is that it depends. Obama has definitely taken a very different tack on foreign policy than he'd indicated in his campaign, and I'm very glad he has. The degree to which I admire someone for doing this is generally the degree to which I think they did it for the right reasons, and not just out of sheer calculation. It particularly depends on whether or not they're reacting to new information. It's not much of a flip-flop to propose a bold tax plan and then tweak it a bit, for example, but it is if you do a 180 on a major issue at the same time it seems politically advantageous to do so. How they explain the change is a huge part of this. It's not refreshing to see someone change their position and then act like they haven't, for example.

Anyway, it does happen, but I think it's pretty rare. But what I'm thinking of should probably be more specific, so I'll clarify: while I think politicians in general are too hesitant to tweak plans and positions, I think the main problem is their unwillingness to do so once they get into campaign mode. I think selection bias is such that, with most politicians, we're in far greater danger of them lacking humility than we are in them lacking steadfastness, so I'd like to see more of the former, manifested as a greater willingness to adjust positions as needed.

[Yoda]

No, that is not what you said. Go back and see. You were not quoting Rick Perry. You were quoting your father and he said something about Rick Perry being right on the issues, but he was a poor debater. I am doing this from memory, but I'll bet you a buck that was the comment you made.
Ya' owe me a buck (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=767427), though with the strength of the dollar it wouldn't be worth the effort to collect, so you can hang onto it. The thing with my father was that he reminded me that Perry had had back surgery, but the rest is me responding to a Perry statement:

"I also think he's completely right when he says we shouldn't be looking to nominate the slickest candidate or the best debater. There's very little reason to assume either thing tells us much about governing. I am not so naive as to think it won't matter, but it should definitely matter a lot less. Oh well."

And of course Rick Perry would say what he said because he is getting killed in these debates. Even when he does a little better he makes poor choices like hammering Romney on something trivial, his landscapers, which were not directly hired by him with no evidence he knew they were illegal immigrants. How does that equate with giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition, essentially a government subsidy? By the way, now something has come out about Romney and illegals Perry could go after him for, but does he have the brains to figure that out if his people don't point it out to him? If you are a very inept debater, it will be real hard to get elected to the presidency. Debates have become standard, and nobody has been elected that was generally viewed as failing to win or draw in most of his presidential debates against his challenger in the general election. Al Gore blew the first debate with Bush big time by acting like a prick and he never fully recovered in the next two. That is why he lost. Yeah, you can say he almost won, but with a stronger performance he may have actually won.
As I said in that post way back when, I don't deny that it effects someone's ability to win. It obviously does. I deny that it should. Or, more specifically, that it should have as much effect as it does.

Throughout this discussion and others, you've taken a "might makes right" position that I find pretty troublesome for a variety of reasons.

[Fiscal]

Worst campaign ad ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM&feature=player_embedded

[will.15]

Hey, Herman, you aren't going to get any votes with that guy talking about you.

You need a hot girl.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uaqG0eWCcw&feature=related

[will.15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=774402#post774402)
No, that is not what you said. Go back and see. You were not quoting Rick Perry. You were quoting your father and he said something about Rick Perry being right on the issues, but he was a poor debater. I am doing this from memory, but I'll bet you a buck that was the comment you made.

Ya' owe me a buck (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=767427), though with the strength of the dollar it wouldn't be worth the effort to collect, so you can hang onto it. The thing with my father was that he reminded me that Perry had had back surgery, but the rest is me responding to a Perry statement:
"I also think he's completely right when he says we shouldn't be looking to nominate the slickest candidate or the best debater. There's very little reason to assume either thing tells us much about governing. I am not so naive as to think it won't matter, but it should definitely matter a lot less. Oh well."




Here is exactly what you said, the entire thing:




"By the way, though I think Perry has performed terribly, my old man pointed out to me that he's recently had back surgery. No idea how much that factors in, but he was probably in pain at the time.

I also think he's completely right when he says we shouldn't be looking to nominate the slickest candidate or the best debater. There's very little reason to assume either thing tells us much about governing. I am not so naive as to think it won't matter, but it should definitely matter a lot less. Oh well"



The way that is written it sounds like the second paragraph you are still quoting your father. "I also think he..."

So I don't owe you a buck.

[Warren'sShampoo]

No, but I found the Tea Party protests to be far more cohesive and focused. And as you point out, they had a unifying demand, vague as it sometimes was. The OWS crowd has, at best, a unifying complaint, which is obviously one step below.

The Wall Street protests also seem to be bigger and are arguably addressing more complex issues. Indeed, the Tea Party simply constituted a rebranding of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who could resort to thirty or forty years' worth of simplistic right-wing rhetoric and sloganeering.

It was "what they want is to punish indiscriminately for specific crimes."

I don't know that they want indiscriminate punishment. However, they are protesting systemic collusion between big business and big government and systemic failure.

It stems from the very common, very easily refutable polemic that tries to manufacture a contradiction between conservative demands for "less government," juxtaposed with those areas where they think it is necessary. It's no contradiction at all, because "less government" is shorthand, and is not meant to mean "less government in absolutely every instance." If anything, this attempt to make these positions seem hypocritical inadvertently demonstrates that they're reasonable folks, because they're not advocating less government across-the-board, but are perfectly willing to recognize that some issues require it. The disagreement is about which and when and why, obviously.

The issue is more that many on the right don't seem to realize how frequently they actually favor government, much like the woman in 2009 who infamously wanted Obama to "keep your government hands off my Medicare."

The reality is that if the Tea Partiers actually possess nuanced thoughts on government's role in American life, then they should be offering a nuanced message. Otherwise, they certainly appear hypocritical because real libertarians such as Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura profess "less government" not just in terms of lower taxes and less domestic spending for Democratic constituents, but also fewer federal mandates or prescriptions on social policy and less defense spending and military adventurism abroad.

Granted, I believe that a form of practical libertarianism—as opposed to sheer and unworkable ideological dogma—is preferable. Indeed, I agree with you that those people (such as Ventura) are reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't think that most of the Tea Partiers are actually "less government" practical libertarians or moderates. Instead, they're merely conservatives, meaning that they want less government in some senses and plenty of government in other areas that would advance their ideological agendas or benefit their self-interest.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with being a non-bigoted conservative, but the idea that contemporary conservatism is compatible with a mindless "less government" mantra proves fatuous.

[Yoda]

The way that is written it sounds like the second paragraph you are still quoting your father. "I also think he..."

So I don't owe you a buck.
"He" in that context referred to Perry, because Perry had, the very day I posted that, said the exact thing I referenced. I assumed with your Perry Google News alert you'd have heard as much, though if you only take note of his gaffes it'd be understandable that you didn't see it. But technically it's ambiguous, so whatever.

That said, it's beside the point who I was quoting. I advanced an idea and you argued with it, and since then we've wasted a whole mess of time which essentially boils down to you saying nothing is true, all while in the midst of trying to convince me of something you think is true. Here's the most relevant summary of my objection from that last post:

"Clearly, you believe there is some kind of truth, because you argue for it, and you occasionally provide some kind of evidence. There would be no reason to do this if you actually believe that there's no such thing as truth or facts in the context of these discussions. And once we've established that some claims can be true or false, we're right back at the original question: do voters spend too much time on superficial things, as opposed to determining what they believe is true? Rick Perry says yes. His motives for saying this are self-serving, but I agree with him. I think we spend too much time arguing about how someone seemed or sounded, and not enough time analyzing the ideas they are espousing, and I think the natural consequence of doing this is that we get better and better actors, rather than better thinkers or leaders.

Do you disagree with any sentence in the above paragraph? If so, which one, and why?"

Or, you could just admit that things are sometimes true, and that saying we put too much emphasis on politicking rather than the strength of policy is a perfectly unobjectionable statement, and we need not reduce the political world to a mash of pointlessness (if so, why argue for anything?) just to avoid agreeing with this.

[will.15]

I nevee ever said nothing was true. I said truth in the democratic process is determined by selling an idea to voters, getting elected to implement it, and the public determines it is suuccessful or not by how they vote in the next election. Truth is determined by elections. I never broadened my truth definition to encompass who said what in a post.

[Yoda]

The Wall Street protests also seem to be bigger and are arguably addressing more complex issues. Indeed, the Tea Party simply constituted a rebranding of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who could resort to thirty or forty years' worth of simplistic right-wing rhetoric and sloganeering.
I don't think they're bigger (unless you count austerity protests in Europe, which is a stretch) and I'm not sure that they're addressing more complex issues. My point, however, was not that they differ in degree, but that they differ fundamentally: the Tea Party complaints were private, before the protests. The protests themselves were about the resulting demands. The OWS protesters are stuck on complaints and appear to be trying to hash that stage out in public, for whatever reason. That's a fundamental difference, and I don't think it bodes well, because what scattered demands have leaked out have been completely insane (I can list them; they're truly mind-blowing).

I don't think the OWS crowd can possibly produce a list of coherent demands that are a) acceptable to the types of people that comprise the movement and b) aren't completely crazy and/or utopian nonsense. I defy them to reconcile the two, and I eagerly await their attempt to do so.

The reference to conservative "sloganeering" is more than a little ironic. Have you seen these protests? They're the very definition of sloganeering, and what's worse, it's sloganeering without a consistently identifiable ideological underpinning.

I don't know that they want indiscriminate punishment. However, they are protesting systemic collusion between big business and big government and systemic failure.
Given that the overwhelming majority of people on this issue only make references to "bankers," I think it's fair to say they're painting with a pretty broad brush. Tell me honestly: have you heard one protester make one specific accusation against one specific person? Because all I hear is a reference to the entire profession. Heck, not even that! Sometimes it's just "Wall St."

I'm also not sure how someone protests "systemic failure." The entire point of a protest is to achieve an end, not to just release anger. A protest without a demand is just a temper-tantrum.

The issue is more that many on the right don't seem to realize how frequently they actually favor government, much like the woman in 2009 who infamously wanted Obama to "keep your government hands off my Medicare."
That's a semantic irony, not any indication of how much the woman "[favors]" government. And it's certainly no more or less ironic than people protesting corporations with their mass-produced smartphones, or calling themselves the 99% while they block ordinary rush hour traffic.

The reality is that if the Tea Partiers actually possess nuanced thoughts on government's role in American life, then they should be offering a nuanced message. Otherwise, they certainly appear hypocritical because real libertarians such as Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura profess "less government" not just in terms of lower taxes and less domestic spending for Democratic constituents, but also fewer federal mandates or prescriptions on social policy and less defense spending and military adventurism abroad.
I don't know how they "appear" hypocritical: wanting programs you've already paid into isn't hypocritical, and wanting government in some areas but not others isn't hypocritical. Thus, there's no problem unless you arbitrarily decide to take "less government" to mean "less government in absolutely all areas." This is a very common, very transparent, very silly rhetorical maneuver people use when they want to make conservatives look bad. There is nothing remotely hypocritical about it.

Granted, I believe that a form of practical libertarianism—as opposed to sheer and unworkable ideological dogma—is preferable. Indeed, I agree with you that those people (such as Ventura) are reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't think that most of the Tea Partiers are actually "less government" practical libertarians or moderates. Instead, they're merely conservatives, meaning that they want less government in some senses and plenty of government in other areas that would advance their ideological agendas or benefit their self-interest.
I didn't say Venture was reasonable; you might be confusing me with someone else.

Really, though, the paragraph above just reiterates that "less government" does not apply in absolutely every area (no kidding) and that conservatism is an ideology like any other (again, no kidding). Is this supposed to be a criticism?

Now, there’s nothing wrong with being a non-bigoted conservative, but the idea that contemporary conservatism is truly compatible with a mindless “less government” mantra proves fatuous.
The only thing "mindless" about this is irrationally extrapolating the phrase to either a) be totally libertarian or b) totally hypocritical. In reality, it's shorthand. The phrase isn't what's simplistic: thinking that those two words are even intended to encompass conservatism is.

[Yoda]

I nevee ever said nothing was true. I said truth in the democratic process is determined by selling an idea to voters, getting elected to implement it, and the public determines it is suuccessful or not by how they vote in the next election. Truth is determined by elections.
No, policy is determined by elections. Truth is not. That's not what the word truth means, and it doesn't start meaning that if you make up some phrase like "truth in the democratic process." We have lots of other words for things like that, like "effectiveness."

Last try:

"Clearly, you believe there is some kind of truth, because you argue for it, and you occasionally provide some kind of evidence. There would be no reason to do this if you actually believe that there's no such thing as truth or facts in the context of these discussions. And once we've established that some claims can be true or false, we're right back at the original question: do voters spend too much time on superficial things, as opposed to determining what they believe is true? Rick Perry says yes. His motives for saying this are self-serving, but I agree with him. I think we spend too much time arguing about how someone seemed or sounded, and not enough time analyzing the ideas they are espousing, and I think the natural consequence of doing this is that we get better and better actors, rather than better thinkers or leaders.

Do you disagree with any sentence in the above paragraph? If so, which one, and why?"

[will.15]

Truth in politics is determined by implementing policy. There is no truth without it.

My truth is an opinion. Your truth is an opinion. Neither is a universal truth. I think my truth (opinion) makes more sense than your truth. Neither of our opinionated truths could be published in a textbook as a factual proven truth.

[Yoda]

Still not going to pick a sentence, eh? Even after I asked three times? Awesome. Fun conversation, dude.

Truth in politics is determined by implementing policy. There is no truth without it.

My truth is an opinion. Your truth is an opinion. Neither is a universal truth. I think my truth (opinion) makes more sense than your truth. Neither of our opinionated truths could be published in a textbook as a factual proven truth.
Then use the word opinion. There is no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth." There is, however, my opinion and your opinion. This is why words exist.

At no point did I argue for treating anyone's opinion like a fact. I argued for an increased emphasis on policy. Please read the first two paragraphs of this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=767710). Because it's shortly after that that things went off the rails: you tossed off a non-sequitur arguing with the idea that communication didn't matter (which I never said), and when I summarized my position again ("it shouldn't be treated as far more important than being right, which it currently is"), that's when you went off on the whole "there's no such thing as right" kookiness, which had exactly zero to do with what I was saying, anyway, because my statement didn't even posit a "universal" right to begin with.

[will.15]

If you think private discrimination is something government should not interfere with and take a lie detector test about believing this and pass, "we should legalize private discrimination again," then what you are saying is true...to you. It doesn't make it true for the overwhelming number of Americans who don't believe it and would also pass a lie detector test saying it should remain illegal.

Universal truth is the only real truth.

[Yoda]

Of course universal truth is the only real truth! That's exactly what I've been arguing for! What on earth is your position supposed to be, man?

[will.15]

You have been saying unproven political ideas is truth. That is not universal.

[FILMFREAK087]

I still don't get veterans supporting Ron Paul, they do realize that their health benefits and pension would be abolished if he were elected, right?

[Yoda]

You have been saying unproven political ideas is truth. That is not universal.
I never said that.

[Yoda]

I still don't get veterans supporting Ron Paul, they do realize that their health benefits and pension would be abolished if he were elected, right?
Ron Paul openly opposed (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/182607-paul-blasts-obama-for-proposed-cuts-to-veteran-health-care) cutting veterans' health benefits.

[will.15]

I never said that.
The entire discussion was in the context of political ideas and you saying there can be truth there without verifying it in a way that would make it universal.

[Yoda]

I said things are true regardless of whether or not people believe them, and that truth was definitely not determined by winning. And I made a distinction (several times, in fact) between things that can be factually disputed and things that can't.

[will.15]

And I said political ideas can only be proven by winning because there is no other way to prove them. And shifting circumstances may make a political idea effective in one situation and unworkable with other circumstances. To repeat something, Libertarians cannot prove their ideology is more effective than conservatism or liberalism, which they claim, unless they get elected and prove it by getting re-elected. With acceptance comes truth until it is rejected. Neither the Democrat or Republican party is a truer way to govern in the universal sense because the electorate never chooses one system permanently over the other. They become temporarily true when they win elections. Libertarians don't even have that kind of truth.

[will.15]

I still don't get veterans supporting Ron Paul, they do realize that their health benefits and pension would be abolished if he were elected, right?
A lot of them would certainly lose their jobs. We don't need as large a military force under Ron Paul after he closes all the foreign bases we have.

[will.15]

Perry just put another nail in his presidential coffin. Maybe he could get away with this crap when he was the front runner, but now it takes all the air out of his economic plan that was supposed to revive his campaign. I actually believe him, he wasn't being serious, but it also shows him for what he is, an incredibly petty and mean spirited human being. Presidential candidates should treat a president, even one from another party, with a certain amount of respect even when criticizing him. But Perry's hate and contempt for Obama is always real obvious:

Rick Perry Flip-Flops On President Obama’s Birth Certificate, Now Has ‘No Doubt’ He’s A US Citizen

by Tommy Christopher (http://www.mediaite.com/author/tommy-christopher/) | 11:50 am, October 26th, 2011
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/perrytrumo-300x188.jpg

After resurrecting the long-dormant “Birther (http://www.mediaite.com/tag/birthers/)” conspiracy about President Obama’s birth certificate in an interview with Parade Magazine (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/morning-joe-reenacts-rick-perrys-parade-magazine-birther-interview/), Texas Gov. Rick Perry doubled and tripled-down on the issue this week. Now, though, The St. Petersburg Times is reporting that (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/rick-perry-obama-american-citizen) Perry now says he has “no doubt” that President Obama was born in the United States, and that he was “kidding around” when he raised the issue several times this week. Has his flirtation with the Birthers, and Donald Trump (http://www.mediaite.com/tag/donald-trump/), rendered his candidacy a joke?

According to the St. Pete Times, Perry made the remarks earlier today (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/rick-perry-obama-american-citizen), in an interview to be broadcast Sunday:
Texas governor Rick Perry clarified Wednesday that he has no doubt that Barack Obama was born in the U.S., saying that he was only kidding around when he voiced doubts in a TV interview earlier this week.
Perry made the comments in an exclusive Political Connections interview to air Sunday on Bay News 9. He was at the Tradewinds Island Grand resort in St. Pete Beach for a $1,000-per person breakfast fundraiser that drew about 50 people.
Perry’s reversal follows the Parade interview in which he spoke about having dinner with Donald Trump, who apparently convinced him that the birth certificate that the President produced in April (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obamas-remarks-on-long-form-birth-certificate-carnival-barkers/)was a forgery. In several later appearances, Perry refused to put the issue to rest, saying it (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-perry-its-fun-to-poke-barack-obama-about-his-birth-certificate/) was “fun” to “poke” the President about his birth certificate. He also complained to a CNN reporter (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-perry-shuts-down-cnn-reporter-for-birther-question/)about the “distraction” the birther issue (that Perry resurrected) creates.
It seems Perry is done with this “distraction,” but is it done with him? He might lose the all-important Orly Taitz/Donald Trump vote (Perry still hopes to secure Trump’s endorsement), and he has awakened the sleeping Trump giant, who’s now, once again, spewing birther crazy to anyone who will listen. Perry might think he was being funny or cute, but having weathered the controversy over his family’s “N*ggerhead” hunting lodge, and with a touchy vote on (http://www.mediaite.com/online/rick-perrys-busy-weekend-birthing-forbes-and-now-confederate-flag-drama-in-texas/)Confederate flag license plates upcoming in Texas, Perry’s decision to joke about a conspiracy movement (http://www.mediaite.com/tag/birthers/) that many see as racially motivated is a curious choice. It might cost him a few primary voters, but it will almost certainly hurt him should he make it to a general election.

[will.15]

AUSTIN, Texas -"Rick Perry may skip some upcoming Republican presidential debates after recent rocky performances that have hurt his standing in polls.

Aides say he has committed to participating in a Nov. 9 debate in Michigan but hasn't committed to any beyond that.

He's seeking to reintroduce himself to the nation on his own terms. And he's returning to the play-it-safe strategy he successfully employed in running for governor of Texas.

Perry has never lost an election. And he debated only when it couldn't be avoided.

He has long conceded he's not a strong debater, contending that his personal contact is a key to his success. But it's unclear whether that will work in a national campaign."


No, it won't.

He will be there if he isn't because the other candidates will make a big deal about his absence (unless he has dropped so much in polling his presence doesn't matter anymore). The big difference is they knew him in Texas when he didn't debate, he was already in office, and there were no debates without him. These debates will go on and he is just admitting defeat if he stops doing them, like a boxer throwing in the towel. Huntsman can skip one and it is no big deal because Huntsman is a blip in the polls. Perry can skip one, and just one, only if he comes up with a real good excuse, not that he is having a bad hair day. "I don't wanna because I am not very good at explaining what I stand for" certainly won't cut it.

[Yoda]

And I said political ideas can only be proven by winning because there is no other way to prove them.
It's not "proven" then, either, because popularity has no relation to truth and it confuses the living daylights out of the issue when you use words like this.

Regardless, even taking in what you seem to mean when you say this, it's still only true of some things. Some things are a matter of opinion, and some are not. You can't really dispute "I think we should do BLANK" on factual grounds, but you can definitely use facts to dispute specific claims like "infrastructure spending is going to boost GDP 4%" or "a personal healthcare mandate will lower costs." There's no way to say that something will boost GDP 4% to you or to me.

And shifting circumstances may make a political idea effective in one situation and unworkable with other circumstances. To repeat something, Libertarians cannot prove their ideology is more effective than conservatism or liberalism, which they claim, unless they get elected and prove it by getting re-elected. With acceptance comes truth until it is rejected. Neither the Democrat or Republican party is a truer way to govern in the universal sense because the electorate never chooses one system permanently over the other. They become temporarily true when they win elections. Libertarians don't even have that kind of truth.
No, that is not "temporarily true." That's not how truth works. The terminology here is just a mess. You said yourself that the only truth is universal truth, so it's nonsensical to turn around and make up qualified phrases like "your truth" or "temporarily true."

But even knowing what you're probably trying to say, all you're really pointing out here is that things are not widely accepted. You're using the existence of disputes about truth to dismiss the entire idea of it even existing, which there is no reason at all to do, except apathy.

[AKA23]

Everybody has to watch this! After seeing this, why would anybody vote for this guy? Republlicans, wise up. I know he is a politician, and politicians have politically convenient changes of heart at times, but this is ridiculous. To all my Republican friends, is this the best you can do? This is the guy who you want to be President of the United States?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhyMplwY6HY

[Yoda]

I'm not a huge Romney guy, but since I'm one of the only people here willing to do this sort of thing, I'll take a crack at it: the majority of those are either small (did Obama make things "worse") or things he's completely owned up to (gun control, abortion). In other words, I don't generally have a problem with people changing their minds when they straight up say they have, which Romney has on many of those issues.

It also would be really, really easy to make a video like this for Obama. So there's a baseline comparison problem, too.

[will.15]

I don' think Romney is a terrible guy, paricularly compared to that jitterbag from Texas, but Romney is in his own special category when it comes to flip-flops.

[AKA23]

You appear to like Herman Cain, right? While I understand his personal appeal, and find his mostly direct and straightforward answers to be refreshing, the problem with him is that he firstly has no political experience, so he will not know how things work, and how to get things done. That is part of Obama's problem too, which he tried to rectify by picking Joe Biden as VP. I think Obama needed more experience before becoming president. Secondly, Herman Cain has no foreign policy experience, and I would not, in this age of terror, elect someone who has no foreign policy experience. At least Obama was in the Senate before he was elected, and more importantly, he was informed on the issues. Not only does he have no foreign policy experience, he really does not have knowledge of world issues. That was part of President Bush's problem too. He didn't have a well developed sense of his worldview on international affairs and the role of the United States as a global power. That was part of why I think he made such poor and rash decisions, to go into Iraq, to start a war in Afghanistan that has been the longest war in history, etc. because he didn't have a worldview. He didn't know what he believed. He wanted us to avoid "nation building" and isolate ourselves from the world. So, when people came to him who had a lot of experience, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, and pushed a worldview on him, he adopted it, because he didn't know any better, and he was fundamentally changed by the 9/11 attacks, and the prospect that we could get hit again. The same thing will happen with Herman Cain, and that, more than anything else, makes him an unserious presidential candidate, no matter his personal appeal.

You are making an inapt comparison. Romney has changed his mind on fundamental issues of conscience. In 1994, Romney was pro-choice. A few years later, he was suddenly pro-life. A person does not have an authentic change of heart on the issue of life in his 50's. That is just not believable. Not only was he supportive of abortion, he was stridently so. He told stories of how he had a family member or friend who had an unsafe abortion, and how he wanted to make sure that didn't happen in this country, and that's why we needed to protect abortion rights etc. He was not a reluctant convert to the pro-choice movement. He was stridently pro-choice. Now he acts like he's the biggest pro-life guy out there. I'm sorry, but that is not believable. Maybe if he was 20, I could accept it, but not for a guy who is 63.

His health care plan is essentially a carbon copy of Obama's proposal, yet he acts like he's never heard of it before. It's so pathetic I can't even tell you. His retort that what he did worked in his state but would not work for the nation, and that it is socialized medicine, is laughable. He says he's against a mandate, but that's exactly what he did in his state, and he says it works great there! I can't believe he's getting away with this stuff. The electorate must be really ignorant, and so desperate to beat Obama, that they'll accept anything.

On gun control, this is another fundamental issue of conscience. It's not like he used to believe in higher taxes but now, he's seen some evidence, and he believes in lower taxes and lower spending. The issues he is changing his mind on are not issues where new knowledge and evidence could motivate an authentic change in perspective. I think that's okay. I have no real problem with Cain responding to criticism of his 999 plan by making some changes, but that's not what Romney is doing. These are fundamental moral issues that he's flipping on.

When he ran for the Senate in 1994, he said he'd be more supportive of gay rights than Ted Kennedy, who was at the time one of the most liberal members in the Congress. Now, he's pro-traditional marriage and is advocating for marriage between a man and a woman. I'm sorry, Yoda, but these things just don't add up. It's not that he's changed his mind. It's that he's blatantly lying to get elected. There is no other explanation for all these changes of positions.

The latest example is his flip on Question 2, which is an anti-union measure in Ohio. At first, he wrote that he was fully supportive of the Governor's efforts. A few months later, he said he didn't want to take a position, and then a few days later he went back to being "110%" for Question 2. Was that another example where he just changed his mind? I don't think so. I think he's a dishonest politician who I would never want to be the president of the United States. This is not my opinion. That's what the evidence proves.

I'm not a Republican, but even if I was, I would not want someone who has no core beliefs, and no conscience, to be the President of the United States.

As for President Obama, I can see where you are coming from, but things are a little bit different. President Obama is modifying his stances slightly not because he has changed his mind on fundamental issues. He is modifying his stances because he realizes that what he wants to get done cannot get done in this political environment. Obama is a pragmatic politician. He wanted a public option in health care, but he knew he couldn't get it done, so he didn't push for it. He wanted to implement the proposals of the debt commission, but he knew he couldn't get it done, so he didn't push for it. He wants more spending, but he knows he can't get another huge infrastructure bill passed, which is why he is only advocating for 400 billion dollars. He wants to close Guantanamo, but he realizes that he has nowhere else for these people to go. These are not fundamental shifts in conscience. These are adaptations to the political environment which he finds himself in. Every president has to do that in order to be successful and get things accomplished. I personally wish Obama were more of a fighter for the things he believed in, but above all, Obama is a pragmatist, not an idealogue, which is why those who say he is a socialist hellbent on taking away our freedoms are misguided. Obama is not a socialist. He's a pragmatic politician trying to get things done.

[Yoda]

It depends on what you mean by "liking" Herman Cain. I don't think he's ready to be President, and I don't want him to win the nomination. I like him in some of the same ways I like Ron Paul: I like that he's drawing attention to certain things, challenging assumptions, and moving that Overton window around. I like that, thanks to him, actual, fundamental tax reform is a campaign issue. I like that people are responding to a candidate that doesn't buy into the ridiculous definition of what constitutes a "gaffe," and ignores its trivial incarnations. But yes, he does lack experience, and that matters. It's a fair criticism that, as you said, was leveled against our current President before he took office. It was fair then, and it's fair now.

Re: Romney and changes of heart. I think it's far, far too general to say that people simply do not have those kinds of changes later in life. I wouldn't feel comfortable making that proclamation, particularly seeing how many people, say, find religion then. I grant you it's not likely in a vacuum, but anything beyond that is speculation of a level I'm not entirely comfortable with.

It bothers me that he was pro-choice and that I can't identify a very obvious mechanism for him to have changed his mind...but he's been pro-life for awhile now, and I don't really doubt that he would be a pro-life President. Perhaps not as fervently as others, granted. But his switch on this issue doesn't make me think, for example, that he'll just switch back once in office. That'd be truly incredible. And if one concludes that that won't happen, then it really becomes a question of how much you want to punish someone for having been wrong before, presumably as some kind of warning to other would-be candidates.

Romney's rationalization of RomneyCare is, indeed, pretty ridiculous. Though it's worth noting that RomneyCare is not "his health care plan," in that he's not proposing it be adopted elsewhere. Like you, I don't buy his distinction between Massachusetts and the rest of the nation...but just like with abortion, I don't see this rationalization as any indication he's going to reverse himself in office. He's been swearing up and down he's going to torpedo ObamaCare in every way he can, and I believe him. Ideally, we would only elect men of genuine principle, but barring that, I can be content with a man who simply does the things I think should be done, whatever the reason, and Romney's been explicit enough in his promises that I think he'd be obligated, even if only guided by self-preservation, to follow-through on them. Or at least try.

So that's my stance on the guy: I think he's smart, capable, competent, and I think whatever his reasons, he's made promises I think he'll probably keep. And if being right on these issues means having to be inconsistent with the wrong beliefs held before, I'll take that over someone who I feel has been consistently wrong from the beginning.

Re: Obama comparison. Trust me, it's not just issues where Obama has tempered his expectations based on the legislative environment, it's blatant stuff. The "no lobbying money" thing, for example, has nothing to do with anything in Congress. In fact, issues of money and transparency are where Obama has no excuse whatsoever, yet has blatantly gone back on pretty much everything he said during his campaign. Heck, he contradicted himself during the campaign when he said he would pledge, along with McCain, to take public funds. Then he realized he could raise a ton of cash if he didn't, and went back on it.

I'm not sure I even understand the Guantanamo thing: there was nothing stopping him from realizing they had "nowhere to go" back when he was campaigning on closing it, too.

I'll allow any President some latitude on some issues because, once they take office, they learn more than they did before. But that doesn't apply on many of these issues.

[will.15]

So is Romney your candidate (you sure weren't in his corner when Pawlenty was still around) or is it Perry because if you don't back Cain the rest of the bunch doesn't add up to much.

[Yoda]

You seem to have ignored the possibility that I have complaints about all the candidates.

The question of who I would "back" is tricky, because it can either mean a) who I think has the best chance to win, or b) who I think would make a better President. Also, Pennsylvania is meaningless in the Republican primary process, so while I often have a rooting interest, actually selecting one in a literal sense has always been a non-issue.

[will.15]

This might be the year Pennsylvania matters. This could be the one that is a nail biter.

[Yoda]

In the primary? I don't think so. We vote in late April; that's a month and a half after Super Tuesday.

[will.15]

You never know. I remember races when uncommitted delegates could affect the results. Of course that was back before 1980.

[will.15]

Even last time Hillary Clinton was still in it after Super Tuesday.

[Yoda]

You know what? I deleted both your post and my reply, FF. I'm done documenting your complete lack of perspective. You are free to be wildly ignorant and completely misrepresent other people's positions, abhorrent as it is, but you're not allowed to wish your political opponents contract cancer and die. Anything of that general nature is going to be deleted going forward.

I'd remind you, again, that there are a good dozen posts awaiting your reply, but I suspect you already know that, and that the increasingly bitter hatefulness of your posts is probably some type of attempt to compensate for it. As far as I'm concerned, each bile-filled post is just another wave of the intellectual white flag.

[FILMFREAK087]

You know what? I deleted both your post and my reply, FF. I'm done documenting your complete lack of perspective. You are free to be wildly ignorant and completely misrepresent other people's positions, abhorrent as it is, but you're not allowed to wish your political opponents contract cancer and die. Anything of that general nature is going to be deleted going forward.

I'd remind you, again, that there are a good dozen posts awaiting your reply, but I suspect you already know that, and that the increasingly bitter hatefulness of your posts is probably some type of attempt to compensate for it. As far as I'm concerned, each bile-filled post is just another wave of intellectual white flag.

And the fact that you ignore the positions of these candidates and pretend that what I'm saying is not fact, is a sign of political cherry picking. You seem to deny that Coburn openly said that the burden should be on their loved ones (I guess if you don't have any tough luck). It's not misrepresentation. Second, I think it would be extremely symmetrical that these individuals be put in the very situation they are so cold to. As for my replies, I'm not going to offer solutions to problems, that to conservatives the only answers are privatize, or simply dismantle vital healthcare programs. Yes, there needs to be a way to make these programs cost effective, but all I hear is how these programs are structured fundamentally incorrect; i.e.; they cost too much to tax payers and if need be, then should be done away with. You keep hinting at a nuance in the right-wing, that isn't there.

If conservatives want to be treated like human beings, then maybe they should start exhibiting some empathy or at least the ability to relate to those in lower social classes.

Would you, or the tea party be upset with the Congress if they done away with Medicare? Answer, no, you would tout it as a necessary action and even praise them, yet when the rumors of "death panels" coming after our seniors came about, you're ilk was just shocked and claimed how inhumane this was. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[AKA23]

Ideally, we would only elect men of genuine principle, but barring that, I can be content with a man who simply does the things I think should be done, whatever the reason, and Romney's been explicit enough in his promises that I think he'd be obligated, even if only guided by self-preservation, to follow-through on them. Or at least try.

So that's my stance on the guy: I think he's smart, capable, competent, and I think whatever his reasons, he's made promises I think he'll probably keep. And if being right on these issues means having to be inconsistent with the wrong beliefs held before, I'll take that over someone who I feel has been consistently wrong from the beginning.

So, is what you are saying that character does not matter to you as a qualification for president? Are you seriously saying that? That is a pretty sad commentary on our society, if that is true. Someone who does what you think should be done out of political convenience rather than out of conviction, that's okay with you? That's shocking to me. What kind of leadership is that? Just going with whatever is politically convenient for the moment? Core principles guide our presidents in office. Romney doesn't seem to have any. You don't see that as a problem?

Re: Obama comparison. Trust me, it's not just issues where Obama has tempered his expectations based on the legislative environment, it's blatant stuff. The "no lobbying money" thing, for example, has nothing to do with anything in Congress. In fact, issues of money and transparency are where Obama has no excuse whatsoever, yet has blatantly gone back on pretty much everything he said during his campaign. Heck, he contradicted himself during the campaign when he said he would pledge, along with McCain, to take public funds. Then he realized he could raise a ton of cash if he didn't, and went back on it.

I agree with you on public financing. I was upset at him for doing a 180 on that during the campaign. At the same time, a pretty good case can be made that had he not done that, he very well could have lost the election. He probably thought it was better to win the election than to go down for a principle, that while worthy, and one that I personally support, the American people will never go for. Do you have other major issues, that are fundamental issues of conscience, that Obama has flipped on? I am not aware of any.

[Yoda]

And the fact that you ignore the positions of these candidates and pretend that what I'm saying is not fact, is a sign of political cherry picking. You seem to deny that Coburn openly said that the burden should be on their loved ones (I guess if you don't have any tough luck). It's not misrepresentation. Second, I think it would be extremely symmetrical that these individuals be put in the very situation they are so cold to. As for my replies, I'm not going to offer solutions to problems, that to conservatives the only answers are privatize, or simply dismantle vital healthcare programs. Yes, there needs to be a way to make these programs cost effective, but all I hear is how these programs are structured fundamentally incorrect; i.e.; they cost too much to tax payers and if need be, then should be done away with. You keep hinting at a nuance in the right-wing, that isn't there.
1) Produce the Coburn quote and we'll discuss it. I haven't heard whatever it is you're referring to and a Google search isn't turning anything up at first blush.

2) Coburn did have cancer. Twice. Has he suffered enough to satiate you, then?

3) No, the conservative position is not to completely eliminate or privatize these programs. That's sheer nonsense. The only person who believes that is Ron Paul, and he does not represent mainstream conservatism by any stretch of the imagination.

You also need to learn to distinguish between eliminating a program and eliminating it on the FEDERAL level. They're not the same thing. I've made this point before, but like everything else you just ignore it. I'm not adding nuance, you're just ignoring the nuance that's there because it doesn't let you pain horns on conservatives.

4) Yeah, you're right, you're not offering solutions to problems. That's kind of my point. It's incredibly easy to complain when you feel no obligation to come up with any plausible alternative.

If conservatives want to be treated like human beings, then maybe they should start exhibiting some empathy or at least the ability to relate to those in lower social classes.
See, here it is: empathy. As if empathy is going to find money to pay for people's health care. As if defibrillators run on empathy.

I think the way you define empathy (which appears to be federal dollars allocated for welfare programs of one kind or another) is pretty ridiculous, but even a good definition wouldn't make this a good argument. True empathy, as I've literally said to you several times now, considers people tomorrow and not just today. And there's no point in having elected officials if they're not willing to make those kinds of choices, considering how they effect everyone. Thinking about people in the near future and not just the present is no less empathetic. If anything, it's a much purer form of empathy, because it's harder, and because it doesn't involve caving into the immediate guilt assuasion of prioritizing the present.

We don't save people's lives, or improve their standard of living, by using whatever plan comes from someone who is able to sound like they care the most. We do it by considering as many factors as possible and working within the resources we have.

Would you, or the tea party be upset with the Congress if they done away with Medicare? Answer, no, you would tout it as a necessary action and even praise them, yet when the rumors of "death panels" coming after our seniors came about, you're ilk was just shocked and claimed how inhumane this was. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
It depends on what they replace it with, if anything. But would I be okay with there being absolutely no welfare safety net for people? No, I wouldn't.

I think you're pretty confused about the "death panels," too. There's not the slightest bit of hypocrisy here. People will die; that much is a given. In a world of scarcity, someone will not get what they need. It's a tragedy, but it's also inevitable. But there is a world of difference between someone who dies because of random chance, or bad luck, or whatever and someone who dies because a government official made a decision to exclude them. You might as well say there's no difference between tripping and falling and having someone push you. Things codified and forced on us by government are fundamentally different than things that we choose, or even things that just happen to us out of misfortune.

[will.15]

I found the quote and he got it right.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/18/298380/coburn-medicare-is-unconstitutional/

[Yoda]

So, is what you are saying that character does not matter to you as a qualification for president? Are you seriously saying that? That is a pretty sad commentary on our society, if that is true. Someone who does what you think should be done out of political convenience rather than out of conviction, that's okay with you? That's shocking to me. What kind of leadership is that? Just going with whatever is politically convenient for the moment? Core principles guide our presidents in office. Romney doesn't seem to have any. You don't see that as a problem?
I don't see it as true. I don't agree that he has no core principles. I understand why people doubt him on this front, but it's one thing to say "I'm suspicious of how he's changed his position" and quite another to say "he's a soulless cipher of a man with no core principles or conviction whatsoever." That's quite a leap. I try not to judge people on such things except in the most extreme examples, because I don't trust anyone's ability (including my own) to determine who's being genuine, and when.

Also, I am not saying that character does not matter, but that character consists of many more things than just consistency. Sometimes admitting you're wrong shows the most character, depending on why you do it. Being humble enough to concede that people and markets can control their lives better than you can is a part of character, too, and I think people who believe they can steer either lack humility, and therefore some character. I think being wise is a part of one's character, so being wrong on major issues is, to my mind, also a deficit of character. So the word consists of quite a few things where I prefer Romney to others.

I agree with you on public financing. I was upset at him for doing a 180 on that during the campaign. At the same time, a pretty good case can be made that had he not done that, he very well could have lost the election. He probably thought it was better to win the election than to go down for a principle, that while worthy, and one that I personally support, the American people will never go for.
Couldn't you say that about Romney, even if you assumed his position shifts were entirely cold calculations? That he determined that, had he not done that, someone else would have won and he thought it better to win than to "go down for a principle"?

Do you have other major issues, that are fundamental issues of conscience, that Obama has flipped on? I am not aware of any.
What do you define as a "fundamental issue of conscience"?

[Yoda]

I found the quote and he got it right.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/18/298380/coburn-medicare-is-unconstitutional/
Thanks for the context. Coburn, however, has voted for various reform packages that do in fact provide people with some level of government assistance for healthcare. So however inelegant his answer is, his voting record shows that his comment couldn't have meant that everyone should be on their own. Sounds like a clumsy way to try to point out to people that just because there's a problem, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that the government must swoop in and fix it.

Makes for an awful sound bite, but that's about the extent of it, from what I can tell so far.

[FILMFREAK087]

1) Produce the Coburn quote and we'll discuss it. I haven't heard whatever it is you're referring to and a Google search isn't turning anything up at first blush.

2) Coburn did have cancer. Twice. Has he suffered enough to satiate you, then?

3) No, the conservative position is not to completely eliminate or privatize these programs. That's sheer nonsense. The only person who believes that is Ron Paul, and he does not represent mainstream conservatism by any stretch of the imagination.

You also need to learn to distinguish between eliminating a program and eliminating it on the FEDERAL level. They're not the same thing. I've made this point before, but like everything else you just ignore it. I'm not adding nuance, you're just ignoring the nuance that's there because it doesn't let you pain horns on conservatives.

4) Yeah, you're right, you're not offering solutions to problems. That's kind of my point. It's incredibly easy to complain when you feel no obligation to come up with any plausible alternative.


See, here it is: empathy. As if empathy is going to find money to pay for people's health care. As if defibrillators run on empathy.

I think the way you define empathy (which appears to be federal dollars allocated for welfare programs of one kind or another) is pretty ridiculous, but even a good definition wouldn't make this a good argument. True empathy, as I've literally said to you several times now, considers people tomorrow and not just today. And there's no point in having elected officials if they're not willing to make those kinds of choices, considering how they effect everyone. Thinking about people in the near future and not just the present is no less empathetic. If anything, it's a much purer form of empathy, because it's harder, and because it doesn't involve caving into the immediate guilt assuasion of prioritizing the present.

We don't save people's lives, or improve their standard of living, by using whatever plan comes from someone who is able to sound like they care the most. We do it by considering as many factors as possible and working within the resources we have.


It depends on what they replace it with, if anything. But would I be okay with there being absolutely no welfare safety net for people? No, I wouldn't.

I think you're pretty confused about the "death panels," too. There's not the slightest bit of hypocrisy here. People will die; that much is a given. In a world of scarcity, someone will not get what they need. It's a tragedy, but it's also inevitable. But there is a world of difference between someone who dies because of random chance, or bad luck, or whatever and someone who dies because a government official made a decision to exclude them. You might as well say there's no difference between tripping and falling and having someone push you. Things codified and forced on us by government are fundamentally different than things that we choose, or even things that just happen to us out of misfortune.

He said that "nowhere in the constitution does it say the government needs to provide healthcare." Then he said that it used to be on the families. I couldn't find a clip of the town hall, but it might be on some file sharing site or something.

I seriously doubt Tom Coburn was incumbered by any medical debt, or in any threat of dying as a result of a lack of insurance, so no his situation would be vastly different than most of lower class Americans.


Again, this concept of state-run entitlement programs is dubious. First, let's think about the fact that most states are in about the same shape, if not worse, fiscally than the federal government. Second, consider the varied populations of states and the political leaders of such states, i.e.; Rick Perry's little Medicade defunding move. Essentially this would leave these programs up to individual political leaders and geographical limitations.

So, it's okay if corporations decide that the elderly or disabled are too cost-prohibitive to cover for medical procedures, but not the government? You see, conservatives don't even acknowledge that this is exactly what private insurance companies do, but they are unwilling to do anything about. Pre-existing conditions exclude the majority of medicare recipients from buying private insurance, even if they wanted to.

Finally, as a matter of money, well that's what this "class warfare," is about. There is plenty of revenue to cover the cost of these programs, and possibly even more comprehensive variations of them, but entire corporate entities and individuals are unwilling to part with any fraction of a percent of more revenue to help those who have far less to survive on.

[will.15]

Time to handicap the early primaries:

Iowa Caucus I think Romney will come in second which might be viewed as a victory of sorts for him. I think Perry has completely worn out his welcome in Iowa and the fact he has so much money to spend on commercials won't change a thing. Romney can neutralize Perry if he chooses to with negative ads of him. That leaves Cain the likely winner, but perhaps without a convincing first place finish. If Perry comes in fourth he will probably be done as a serious candidate.

New Hampshire Romney all the way, Cain a credible but distant second and Perry behind Ron Paul.

South Carolina This could be interesting. Supposedly they always pick the nominee, but this could be the year they don't. This might be the state where Perry's money makes a difference and his good old boy style and bullying ways might go over. South Carolina go for Romney? I doubt it. Cain may win, but I think it might be a narrow win.

Florida If Perry wins South Carolina that might make him more competitive here, but I think he has already made too many missteps in a more moderate Southern state to win. Does Cain have enough money to compete in a large state? Looks like a Romney win to me, but could be close. I say Romney first, Cain second, Perry third.

If Romney wins Florida he will look like the probable nominee. He might hit some rocks in the South, but after that it should be smooth sailing.


Another prediction: Perry won't miss any debates despite the talk unless he has already decided to drop out before he makes it official.

[will.15]

A report published by Politico late Sunday night reveals that two women accused Herman Cain (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/government/herman-cain-PEPLT00008439.topic) of sexual harassment while he was head of the National Restaurant Assn. in the late 1990s.

The Republican presidential candidate and retired pizza chain executive has refused to comment on the allegations, but a campaign spokesman told Politico that Cain was "vaguely familiar" with the charges.

The two women had worked at the restaurant trade group under Cain, but left their posts after complaining about his behavior. The women signed agreements with the association that included financial payouts and barred them from discussing their departures, according to the Politico report.

Sources told Politico that the behavior included, "conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association's offices."

Cain refused Sunday to discuss the matter when a Politico reporter approached him on the street in Washington, D.C.

Cain said he would not comment until he saw "some facts or some concrete evidence."

"Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?" a reporter asked.

Cain replied: "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?"

Cain is scheduled to appear Monday morning at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where he will discuss his "9-9-9" tax plan.

That sort of thing didn't hurt Clinton or Clarence Thomas. I am still waiting to see if Larry Flynt digs up some dirt on Rick Perry.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

[Fiscal]

Sources told Politico that the behavior included, "conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association's offices."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5xZKszXMQ&feature=feedu

[AKA23]

I don't see it as true. I don't agree that he has no core principles. I understand why people doubt him on this front, but it's one thing to say "I'm suspicious of how he's changed his position" and quite another to say "he's a soulless cipher of a man with no core principles or conviction whatsoever." That's quite a leap. I try not to judge people on such things except in the most extreme examples, because I don't trust anyone's ability (including my own) to determine who's being genuine, and when.

Yoda, you're smarter than this. Romney has not changed his mind on a couple of issues. Romney has changed his mind on virtually every single issue in the campaign. From abortion rights, to health care, to global warming, to anti-union measures, to gay rights..it goes on and on. I agree with you that it shows character to change your mind when new evidence presents itself, but there is no new evidence on these issues. You either believe life beings at conception, or you don't. You either believe man contributes to global warming and that we should do everything we can to amerliorate it's effects, or you don't. You either think there should be universal health care for everyone, or you don't. These are not issues upon which new information can bring about a change of position. We're not talking about corporate taxes. We're not talking about changing your mind on a regulation here or a regulation there. Romney has no core. He will say whatever he has to to get elected. That is the reality.

You say Romney has principles. What are they? What issue has he remained firm on and defended throughout his career? When has he refused to change a position on an issue out of personal conviction? I haven't seen it, and I'm really trying to be fair to the man, but Yoda, I have to call a spade a spade. Romney is a dishonest person. That's just the reality, and I don't want someone like that as the President of the United States.

I don't think you can say the same thing about Obama. Obama has clear principles. Obama does not believe in free market capitalism as it currently exists. Obama has remained pro-choice throughout his career. Obama believes in global warming. Obama believes in higher taxes for the wealthy. The fact that he has not been able to implement these policy prescriptions is not from a lack of conviction. It's in tune with the political reality of the times.

In my opinion, people misread the 2008 election. I never believed what the media was saying when Obama won, that this would bring about a progressive outlook that the country would embrace. Barack Obama won, in my opinion, not because people were ready for a progressive to lead the nation, but because he was able to appeal to a wide variety of people across the spectrum. People saw what they wanted to see in Obama. Some people saw a very liberal guy, others saw a moderate, while others saw a socialist who was born in Kenya and was a Muslim. People imbued Obama with what they wanted to see, which is why people are so disappointed with him. He wasn't the guy they thought they were electing, no matter where you are across the political spectrum.

In his heart, I think Obama is a liberal guy, but I believe he knows that he can't get those super liberal things done, and he prizes accomplishment more than fighting the good fight. I often wish that he had more of a fight in him, like on the health care debate for example, or when he renewed the Bush tax cuts, but at his heart, Obama is not that guy.

That, in addition to the economy being in the tank, is why his poll numbers are so low. Despite this, I still think Obama is going to win the election. I just don't think the American people are ready to elect Mitt Romney as President of the United States, and I find it pathetic that the Republican field does not have stronger candidates running. This is the best shot the Republicans have had, probably since Jimmy Carter, to take back the White House. This is all that they can come up with? I find that to be very sad.

[will.15]

To be fair to Mitt Romney he hasn't flip flopped on global warming. He has always had a weasley position on that, that he thinks it exists and man has contributed to it, but he doesn't know to what extent. That still puts him to the left of Rick Perry. And now a scientist funded by the right wing Koch Brothers has concluded global warming is happening after all.

Mitt Romney is the Republican Party's only chance of defeating Obama. The rest of them have no chance. The stats we keep hearing, no incumbent has been re-elected with unemployment over seven percent, is much less impressive when you look at it. First this statement isn't always qualified. It did happen when Roosevelt was President, he was re-elected twice with unemployment far higher than it is now. After that only three incumbents were defeated with high unemployment numbers: Gerald Ford who lost in a squeaker and had a lot of baggage; Jimmy Carter who was extremely unpopular; and George Walker Bush whose opponent was the most charismatic candidate the Democrats had since John Kennedy. Obama doesn't have Carter's problem, no Democrat of any consequence is challenging him, and little recent blips in the economy upward has also affected his poll numbers so he is closer right now to fifty fifty in popularity. What the economy will be next year in September I have no idea, but Republican confidence, which I hear in some circles, that the economy is so bad the Republicans can defeat him with any candidate is patently ridiculous. Romney is the safe choice because he is a non scary alternative to Obama. Except he is Republican and not a Democrat, he really has no core values. He is a total pragmatist. But flip flopping on social issues isn't going to matter much if he gets past the primaries to the general election where the focus will be on the economy and his business background and emphasis on the economy will put him in a very good place against Obama. He is smart not trying to pander to social conservatives this time (he is doing it though for pragmatic reasons, it didn't work).

[klacc]

I think Romney will be against Obama, but I don't think he will be able to beat him.

[will.15]

Saturday, September 17, 2011

The Texas Miracle


The Texas miracle not so miraculous (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/16/7796858-latest-texas-jobs-figures-shows-net-jobs-loss-unemployment-highest-in-24-years) after all:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry's efforts to tout his record on jobs and the economy as a centerpiece of his presidential campagn took a hit today with new figures from one of his own state agencies: They show the Texas unemployment rate increased to 8.5% in August -- the highest level in more than 24 years and more than twice the rate when Perry took office in December 2000.

The new unemployment rate for Texas is still below the national average of 9.1%. But the new figures from the Texas Workforce Commission included some disturbing trends: There was a net jobs loss of 1,300 in Texas during the month of August, even worse than than the latest national figures showing zero job growth.Their talking point is, well the economy sucks, and even in Texas they're going to feel it. But one wonders if Goodhair's clueless supporters will make the connection on why the economy still sucks. You know, because of GOP austerity mania:
While the private sector did add 8,100 jobs in Texas during August, this was more than offset by a shrinking public sector resulting in the loss of 9,400 government jobs, state figures show. This is not a difficult concept. It's astounding that the hard core cons just can't grasp it. Their response to clear empircal evidence is always, "Duh, we can't keep spending beyond our means." As if the government hasn't been doing that for 200 years without ending the world.

[will.15]

Isn't it refreshing Herman keeps changing his mind about what happened back in the stone age? Does he know anything about sexual harassment charges? No. Oh, yes. Did he know about a cash settlement? No. Maybe. Yes. Did he ask a woman not his wife to go up to his hotel room. I don't remember that, which will probably change tomorrow to definitely not. Do I really care if the allegations the women made are true? No. But the way he is handling this shows complete incompetence. He is pretty close to buffoon level at this point.

[will.15]

More revelations or allegations about Herman Cain and his behavior toward women. He's cooked. Let the Romney coronation begin.

I saw highlights of that New Hampshire speech Perry gave yesterday. If he wasn't drunk, he was either on painkillers, crack, or just nuts.

Now Cain is saying Perry is behind it with no proof. Doesn't he know this screws up Fox News talking points it is the liberal media because they are out to get conservative blacks?

And now the Perry people are blamng Romney for leaking the story! These pepole are hilarious. It probably won't matter in six months, but right now the Republican presidential campaign looks like a movie made by the Airplane people.

Can't someone tell Herman Cain to just shut-up?

[will.15]

I found the entire Rick Perry speech, not just the highlights. I was under the impression the edited version made him look worse. Not so. I have never seen anything like this except on Saturday Night Live. That isn't anything like he normally talks. He must be on something. If he ever showed up at a debate like that he would be in two percent. Romney should just give Perry free exposure and run ads from that speech.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21z30aNO3cA

He seems a little better at the end, but he still has creepy moments. With Cain's candidacy probably collapsing are Republicans insane enough to nominate Perry who I am now convinced is not working with a full deck. There is something wrong with him.

[Yoda]

I seriously doubt Tom Coburn was incumbered by any medical debt, or in any threat of dying as a result of a lack of insurance, so no his situation would be vastly different than most of lower class Americans.
You're right, he just had cancer twice (and had a tumor removed another time), but he's got money, so it's totally cool to wish he gets it again, because he hasn't displayed the arbitrary amount of arbitrarily defined empathy. Good grief.

Again, this concept of state-run entitlement programs is dubious. First, let's think about the fact that most states are in about the same shape, if not worse, fiscally than the federal government. Second, consider the varied populations of states and the political leaders of such states, i.e.; Rick Perry's little Medicade defunding move.
The states are in bad shapes precisely because of entitlements they can't meet. Most of the stimulus money that went to the states went to them to fund Medicare and Medicaid funding gaps. That's the whole point of switching away from a top-down, federal approach: because it's put states in untenable financial situations. It's utterly failed. The fact that you're trying to use the hole the federal plan has put the states in to argue against removing federal mandates for it tells me that you have no idea what's going on. You're clearly working backwards ad-hoc from a conclusion here.

So, it's okay if corporations decide that the elderly or disabled are too cost-prohibitive to cover for medical procedures, but not the government? You see, conservatives don't even acknowledge that this is exactly what private insurance companies do, but they are unwilling to do anything about.
Yes, of course! We're talking about the difference between free choices and government diktat. There's a world of difference between something that arises out of circumstance (whether out of choices or mere misfortune) and something which is specifically mandated by government. Do you also see no difference between someone who chooses not to speak, and someone the government actively silences?

Pre-existing conditions exclude the majority of medicare recipients from buying private insurance, even if they wanted to.
This is one issue where people have gotten horrendously confused: of course they can't accept pre-existing conditions...that's the entire point of insurance. It's not "insurance" if you can pay for it after you already have the health problem. The concept is simple: to insure yourself, you pay less month to month. You pay this even if you don't need healthcare, because when you do, they pay all (or most, or more) of the cost. It's the same way you pay car insurance every month: to guard against disaster. The payments that come in when people don't need help pays for the much more expensive times when some of them do. When people say that they should have to accept people with preexisting conditions, that's like saying you should be able to get car insurance after an accident and then have the car insurance company pay for everything minus the monthly premium.

That's impossible. If this happened, the entire industry would collapse and there wouldn't even be any insurance. The entire idea is predicated on calculating the risk of things happening, and then coming up with a monthly total based on that risk. When people complain about not covering preexisting conditions, they're saying that insurance companies should stop selling insurance and just start paying for health care to be nice. That is ther literal, unexaggerated implication of that piece of rhetoric.

Finally, as a matter of money, well that's what this "class warfare," is about. There is plenty of revenue to cover the cost of these programs, and possibly even more comprehensive variations of them, but entire corporate entities and individuals are unwilling to part with any fraction of a percent of more revenue to help those who have far less to survive on.
What revenue and what corporate entities are you referring to? Do you just mean that some people have money, and so we should take more of it until we have enough to cover our entitlements? Because that's wrong for at least two major reasons, one ethical and one simply pragmatic.

The idea that corporations aren't willing to part with anything is patently absurd. Corporations give billions in charity just for the PR it generates, for crying out loud. And you're not going to be able to tax them more heavily without costing other people jobs, and without hindering the very economic growth that raises the definition of poverty to begin with.

[Yoda]

Yoda, you're smarter than this. Romney has not changed his mind on a couple of issues. Romney has changed his mind on virtually every single issue in the campaign. From abortion rights, to health care, to global warming, to anti-union measures, to gay rights..it goes on and on. I agree with you that it shows character to change your mind when new evidence presents itself, but there is no new evidence on these issues. You either believe life beings at conception, or you don't. You either believe man contributes to global warming and that we should do everything we can to amerliorate it's effects, or you don't. You either think there should be universal health care for everyone, or you don't. These are not issues upon which new information can bring about a change of position. We're not talking about corporate taxes. We're not talking about changing your mind on a regulation here or a regulation there. Romney has no core. He will say whatever he has to to get elected. That is the reality.
I don't buy this either-or reasoning. Many people have changed their minds on fundamental issues for a variety of reasons. Reagan was a Democrat. So was Perry. People certainly change their mind on certain issues less often, but they're not special issues that someone forms an opinion on and can never change. You don't necessarily get new data on some of them (though you can on most of them; I'm not sure why you'd think global warming or universal health care are immune to new data or examples), but you can still see them in a new light.

So, in short, I'd say that I simply don't accept the premise that "these are not issues upon which new information can bring about a change of position."

You say Romney has principles. What are they? What issue has he remained firm on and defended throughout his career? When has he refused to change a position on an issue out of personal conviction?
Any time they maintain a position for any period of time, it becomes a possible example of this, but there's no way to determine why they did it.

I don't think you can say the same thing about Obama. Obama has clear principles. Obama does not believe in free market capitalism as it currently exists. Obama has remained pro-choice throughout his career. Obama believes in global warming. Obama believes in higher taxes for the wealthy. The fact that he has not been able to implement these policy prescriptions is not from a lack of conviction. It's in tune with the political reality of the times.
Okay, but how valuable is being consistent if you're consistently wrong?

Thought experiment: would you rather vote for someone who has been consistently wrong, or someone whose motives you're unsure of, but who says they'll do the things you think need to be done? I'm not sure why the former is supposed to be a better option. Consistency is valuable when comparing between people who share your beliefs and ideology, but it's not a good argument for advocating one candidate with one set of beliefs over another.

In my opinion, people misread the 2008 election. I never believed what the media was saying when Obama won, that this would bring about a progressive outlook that the country would embrace. Barack Obama won, in my opinion, not because people were ready for a progressive to lead the nation, but because he was able to appeal to a wide variety of people across the spectrum. People saw what they wanted to see in Obama. Some people saw a very liberal guy, others saw a moderate, while others saw a socialist who was born in Kenya and was a Muslim. People imbued Obama with what they wanted to see, which is why people are so disappointed with him. He wasn't the guy they thought they were electing, no matter where you are across the political spectrum.
Agree completely. And I think he invited it and exploited this. Many candidates would, of course, but I don't think this is something people did to him, exactly, but more something people were willing to do to him and something he was willing to let them do.

In his heart, I think Obama is a liberal guy, but I believe he knows that he can't get those super liberal things done, and he prizes accomplishment more than fighting the good fight. I often wish that he had more of a fight in him, like on the health care debate for example, or when he renewed the Bush tax cuts, but at his heart, Obama is not that guy.

That, in addition to the economy being in the tank, is why his poll numbers are so low. Despite this, I still think Obama is going to win the election. I just don't think the American people are ready to elect Mitt Romney as President of the United States, and I find it pathetic that the Republican field does not have stronger candidates running. This is the best shot the Republicans have had, probably since Jimmy Carter, to take back the White House. This is all that they can come up with? I find that to be very sad.
Well, I'm no Romney cheerleader. I wouldn't go as far as calling it sad because I think he's a very competent guy and competency is what we need most right now. And I think character has lots of components; consistency is only one, and it might not even be one, because consistency is an odd trait that has positive value when you're right and negative value when you're wrong. It is not an inherently good thing.

That said, I really wish McCain were running this year instead of in 2008.

The real thing that matters is electing a person to do certain things. Romney's shifts in position only matter insofar as we have reason to believe they will change what he does when elected, yes? So that's the question: do I think the fact that he was pro-choice before mean he won't be stoutly pro-life as President? Maybe. Do I think the fact that he enacted RomneyCare means he won't do his best to weaken and repeal ObamaCare? No, not at all.

[will.15]

Who wants to bet Cain will drop out of the race before the Iowa caucus?

[AKA23]

[QUOTE=Yoda;776369]I don't buy this either-or reasoning. Many people have changed their minds on fundamental issues for a variety of reasons. Reagan was a Democrat. So was Perry. People certainly change their mind on certain issues less often, but they're not special issues that someone forms an opinion on and can never change. You don't necessarily get new data on some of them (though you can on most of them; I'm not sure why you'd think global warming or universal health care are immune to new data or examples), but you can still see them in a new light.

I understand what you are saying. People can change their minds on certain issues, and no issue is immune to a change of position. We agree on that. At the same time, Romney has changed his opinion on virtually every major issue. In 2002, he was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-universal health care, with an individual mandate no less, a believer in global warming, and someone who raised taxes in his state. Now, Romney, a few years later, when he started running in 2006, or thereabouts, became pro-life, a supporter of both a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and abortion, against gun control, against his own plan in Massachusetts, against implementing steps to combat global warming, and against raising any taxes (or "fees," which is the politically convenient term).

Are you familiar with Romney's shift of position on the anti-union measure in Ohio? A few months ago, he "strongly supported" the Governor's efforts, then he didn't want to take a position, then a few days later he was "110%" for the anti-union measure. Come on, Yoda. You're smarter than this. On your overall point, I agree with you. On Romney in particular, I think the evidence shows that he is changing a lot of his positions for political expediency, not out of conviction. What is your argument against this? That he honestly had a change of heart on all of these positions, and that his changes of heart all marched inexorably to helping him win the nomination of the Republican party? All of his positions are politically convenient. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that would put him in disfavor with his party. Do you honestly believe that all these changes of positions, or most of them, are out of genuine and authentic conviction? If you do, I am shocked.

As for Reagan, he was a Democrat, but his conversion to the Republican party was not within a few years. It was a long process, and was a reaction to what Reagan felt had been the failure of the welfare state of the Roosevelt and Johnson eras. Reagan did not have positions on fundamental issues and then, a few years later, when he was running for President, changed all of them in the direction that would help him win political office. While I respect your attempt to refute my point, it's not a comparable situation. Romney's position shifts are much more rapid, and much more politically expedient, than Reagan's ever were.

Okay, but how valuable is being consistent if you're consistently wrong?

Thought experiment: would you rather vote for someone who has been consistently wrong, or someone whose motives you're unsure of, but who says they'll do the things you think need to be done?

I think you have a good argument in general, but here's where you and I disagree. I don't think Obama has been consistently wrong. Let's take a concrete example. The Republican mythology is that the stimulus package did not work. I'd be the first to admit that the stimulus package did not work as well as we were promised. That is a given. At the same time, it did work. There is little argument against this. When Obama came into office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. In the latest report, we created 80,000 jobs in October. That is what you would call an improvement in the economy. Obama's policies are working. They just are not working fast enough for the electorate, or for our needs, but they are working. What did you expect Obama to do? Turn around the entire economy in three years? The guy is a politician, not a miracle worker, and the Republicans won't even let him implement his agenda. How is this his fault?

I have another newsflash for you, which I'm sure you'll agree with. No matter who was President, nobody would have been able to turn this economy around in three years. Even if a Republican were in office, and could implement every single one of the policies on conservative's wish list, it would not have worked. These things take years and years to recover from. All we have to do is look to the example of Germany and China to see this. It's not the fault of Obama. Obama has not done enough. His policies have not worked as well as I would have liked, and he has not built the relationships across the aisle to get as much done as this country needs. Those are givens. I'm not an Obama apologist, but I think you have to give the guy credit where credit is due. There has been progress.

Let's take another example, the auto-bailout. That worked as well. Obama saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, and stopped the auto industry from going into bankruptcy. They've paid the money back, or at least some of the companies have, and they are now turning a profit. Republicans would have the auto industry go into bankruptcy in order to let the "market" work. Obama did not do that, and it paid off.These are facts, Yoda. I'm not making this up. Unemployment is now 9.0%, which is lower than it was last month. The economy is improving. It just is not improving as much as we want or need, but to say that Obama has been consistently wrong is not accurate.

That said, I really wish McCain were running this year instead of in 2008.

Why do you wish McCain were running now instead of in 2008? That's an interesting view.

The real thing that matters is electing a person to do certain things. Romney's shifts in position only matter insofar as we have reason to believe they will change what he does when elected, yes?

No, I don't agree with this. If I had a politician in office that agreed with everything that I did, but was only implementing these policies because they thought it was politically convenient to do so, I would have a problem with it. I think character and integrity guide you in that office, and these politically convenient shifts in position undermine my confidence that when hard times hit, the person in power will do what he thinks is right. I don't want a politician who changes his mind every time the wind blows, or who does so only, or primarily, because it's politically convenient to do so. That is not my definition of leadership, and I'm somewhat taken aback that it seems to be yours. /QUOTE]

[will.15]

And we live in a gobal economy. What is going on n Europe with that Greek soap opera could affect us here. And there is going to come a time when China's ecconomy will face a severe slowdown (the economists who think otherwise are wrong), probably by 1214, and that is going to affect us big time. If Romney becomes President (it sure as Hell isn't going to be Cain or "Captain Queeg" Perry) and we double dip when that happens, watch all the conservatives make excuses and say Republican policy is blameless. And of course the Democrats will put all the blame on Republicans. But it will still be good for the Chinese to face reality, that you can't micro manage growth forever by centralized control, and hopefully do to their government what Egyptians and Libyans did to theirs. China's weird totalitarian capitalism is doomed to fail.

[will.15]

Romney about to unveil his Medicare Plan. He has finessed the Ryan Plan out of its most toxic features, but I wonder if private insurance companies will want to compete with the government plan if they have to provide the same benefits, which is what his plan requires.

[will.15]

This is one issue where people have gotten horrendously confused: of course they can't accept pre-existing conditions...that's the entire point of insurance. It's not "insurance" if you can pay for it after you already have the health problem. The concept is simple: to insure yourself, you pay less month to month. You pay this even if you don't need healthcare, because when you do, they pay all (or most, or more) of the cost. It's the same way you pay car insurance every month: to guard against disaster. The payments that come in when people don't need help pays for the much more expensive times when some of them do. When people say that they should have to accept people with preexisting conditions, that's like saying you should be able to get car insurance after an accident and then have the car insurance company pay for everything minus the monthly premium.

That's impossible. If this happened, the entire industry would collapse and there wouldn't even be any insurance. The entire idea is predicated on calculating the risk of things happening, and then coming up with a monthly total based on that risk. When people complain about not covering preexisting conditions, they're saying that insurance companies should stop selling insurance and just start paying for health care to be nice. That is ther literal, unexaggerated implication of that piece of rhetoric.
Except you're wrong.

They do accept pre-existing conditions under employer plans. And would have to accept them if they compete against Medicare under Romney's plan. Are you saying private insurance won't be able to compete against government run Medicare because they have to accept pre exiting conditions? Are you saying in a competition between a government plan versus private the government one will win because private companies won't be willing to compete against it?

[Yoda]

Except you're wrong.

They do accept pre-existing conditions under employer plans. And would have to accept them if they compete against Medicare under Romney's plan. Are you saying private insurance won't be able to compete against government run Medicare because they have to accept pre exiting conditions? Are you saying in a competition between a government plan versus private the government one will win because private companies won't be willing to compete against it?
This is just flat-out wrong. Saying "they do accept pre-existing conditions" is to pretend all are the same. In reality, some insurance plans will accept some preexisting conditions under some circumstances, and sometimes that makes sense, but that doesn't invalidate the principle I'm talking about at all. To complain when they deny coverage (or charge more) based on a preexisting condition, or to act as if this is some fundamental flaw with the industry, is to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of insurance. Hell, even the word insurance.

As for whether or not they would compete: it depends. But at the bare minimum they'd have to raise premiums. And high premiums, amusingly, are one of the things people use to complain about the state of the industry to begin with. Their own interference provides the political impetus to interfere more. It's a pretty common rhetorical cycle.

[will.15]

This is just flat-out wrong. Saying "they do accept pre-existing conditions" is to pretend all are the same. In reality, some insurance plans will accept some preexisting conditions under some circumstances, and sometimes that makes sense, but that doesn't invalidate the principle I'm talking about at all. To complain when they deny coverage (or charge more) based on a preexisting condition, or to act as if this is some fundamental flaw with the industry, is to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of insurance. Hell, even the word insurance.

As for whether or not they would compete: it depends. But at the bare minimum they'd have to raise premiums. And high premiums, amusingly, are one of the things people use to complain about the state of the industry to begin with. Their own interference provides the political impetus to interfere more. It's a pretty common rhetorical cycle.
No health plan I am aware of accepts pre existing conditions when people are trying to get private insurance. Maybe there are narrow exceptions, but they all do under employee plans. That is not wrong. That is standard. If you work for a company that has a health insurance plan you're covered. There are no exceptions for a pre existing condition. The reason they do is by insuring large numbers of people at the same time, with healthy people making up for the unhealthy ones, it balances out. But under a medicare type plans for seniors does it make sense? And if they jack up premiums how do they then compete with Medicare? That is why I am not quite understanding Romney's Plan. Most of these Republican type plans that set up competition with government services are rigged against government services, they are designed to eliminate the government plan. I don't see how the Romney plan does that. Private companies can only compete for Medicare enrollees if they provide benefits and conditions comparable to Medicare. How can they compete with that? How can they offer lower premiums than Medicare?

[Yoda]

No health plan I am aware of accepts pre existing conditions when people are trying to get private insurance. Maybe there are narrow exceptions, but they all do under employee plans. That is not wrong.
No, that's not wrong. What's wrong is that anything you said invalidates anything I said. Which is a problem, because your first sentence was "Except you're wrong."

I never really know what to say when you contradict me, and then expand in a way that doesn't contradict anything. What am I supposed to do? Link to some kind of tutorial on rudimentary logic? I'm at a loss. Please read the post again. It was a retort directed towards people complain about insurers not accepting pre-existing conditions.

The reason they do is by insuring large numbers of people at the same time, with healthy people making up for the unhealthy ones, it balances out.
I think the word "balance" is a convenient misnomer. It's more accurate to say the cost is merely spread out, which is another way of saying some people are paying to keep others' premiums down. Result: higher premiums in general. It's really just redistributed cost with a layer or two of abstraction, which is probably why people get less up in arms over it than more blatant examples of redistribution.

Also, it's worth noting that the reason employers can afford to do this is that the government subsidizes the cost. Which is one of many reasons I'm incredulous when people try to point to the current system as an example of the market "failing" in health care. There's at least one major thumb on the scale.

But under a medicare type plans for seniors does it make sense? And if they jack up premiums how do they then compete with Medicare? That is why I am not quite understanding Romney's Plan. Most of these Republican type plans that set up competition with government services are rigged against government services, they are designed to eliminate the government plan. I don't see how the Romney plan does that. Private companies can only compete for Medicare enrollees if they provide benefits and conditions comparable to Medicare. How can they compete with that? how can they offer lower premiums than medicare?
Huh? Who said anything about Romney's plan? If you wanted to branch off and discuss Romney's plan (which I haven't looked at and therefore have no opinion about yet), why did you use "You're wrong" as a segue when I wasn't even talking about it?

[will.15]

How does government subsidize employee plans? it has nothing to with government.

What you said was wrong was you said private insurance companies can't accept pre exiting conditions when they do under employee plans. The fact that it may make premiums higher is irrelevant.

And I now realize they also do so under current Medicare as well as Medicare patients have the option of accepting a private HMO plan with their Medicare money, sometimes at a reduced premium, but also with more restrictions. Which makes me more baffled by the Romney plan. How is it more cost effective?

I brought up the Romney Plan in a separate paragraph. The main point was your previous statement was wrong, that private insurance companies can't accept pre existing conditions. They can and do. You were accepting a statement by film freak as accurate when it wasn't, just under a narrow situation, private insurance plans for private individuals.

[Yoda]

How does government subsidize employee plans? it has nothing to with government.
Money spent on health insurance isn't taxed when provided by employers. But it is when bought privately. This is a huge deal.

What you said was wrong was you said private insurance companies can't accept pre exiting conditions when they do under employee plans. The fact that it may make premiums higher is irrelevant
It's meaningless to say that private companies accept these things "under employee plans," because that really means they don't accept it unless someone else covers the difference. So the statement is really just "they can afford to do this thing if the government gives them enough tax incentive to afford it." Well, no kidding. That doesn't make it economically viable, it just means taxpayers are underwriting something. I'm not sure you can say the company is really doing something it wouldn't otherwise do because of special tax exemptions. And it sure doesn't change the basic model of viability.

The salient point in all this, regardless, is that people who complain about private insurance not covering preexisting conditions are railing against reality. They mention this as if it's some kind of indictment of the industry, but it's really no different than complaining about the price of anything. It's talked about like some Scrooge-like refusal to help, when in reality it's the basis for the entire concept of insurance. And I think those complaints betray a fundamental lack of understanding about this concept.

[will.15]

I think it is bizarre that you would claim government is subsidizing something because it isn't taxed. That is not Republicnan free market dogma. By that logic that would mean governemnt would be subsidizing business for every tax break. And that only affects business costs. It doesn't affect the insurance companies who are providing the insurance. It doesn't affect their costs and premium structure.

And the point about criticizing not insuring pre existing conditions, the salient point is if you do away with government run Medicare, the point of the Ryan Plan, and allow insurers to not accept pre existing conditions, then you no longer have a Medicare system because there are not going to be very many people over 65 who are not going to have some kind of pre existing problem. But you are creating a trojan horse because this has never been an issue. Even under Ryan insurance companies would accept pre existing conditions because the large pool of people that would be seeking insurance would make it cost effective. They might under a completely unregualted system want to adjust their premiums, but to shut out business from senior citizens based on something coming up in a physical, if they required one, won't leave them with many seniors to insure. And the HMO plans that are currently competing against Medicare don't screen for existing condition so it isn't a problem for them.

[Yoda]

I think it is bizarre that you would claim government is subsidizing something because it isn't taxed.
In most scenarios I agree with this sentiment. I made an exception here because the tax break is massive. Like, really massive. And it really screws up the industry and consumers' understanding of it. As far as I can tell this isn't even a point of dispute among conservatives and liberals; it is a widely recognized problem.

And that only affects business costs. It doesn't affect the insurance companies who are providing the insurance. It doesn't affect their costs and premium structure.
Real-life business is not as cleanly divided as this. There's no actual line between these costs; they influence one another. The fact that it's cheaper for the employer means much more of it is purchased, and the abstraction between cost and price (which, again, is not a controversial issue) distorts the market in profound ways. I'm not sure how one could possibly claim that a tax incentive that caused industry to overwhelmingly prefer one type of insurance over another doesn't affect their cost or premiums. It has to, even if only based on economies of scale, both in terms of the overall increased spending (because of the tax favoritism), or because so many people are buying healthcare in pools (because of the tax favoritism favoring employers, specifically).

And the point about criticizing not insuring pre existing conditions, the salient point is if you do away with government run Medicare, the point of the Ryan Plan, and allow insurers to not accept pre existing conditions, then you no longer have a Medicare system because there are not going to be very many people over 65 who are not going to have some kind of pre existing problem.
Every serious reform plan I've ever seen has a grandfather (literally! Heh) element to it. What you're saying would be true if the changes were enacated all at once, overnight, but that's something pretty much everyone understands is patently unfair.

But you are creating a trojan horse because this has never been an issue. Even under Ryan insurance companies would accept pre existing conditions because the large pool of people that would be seeking insurance would make it cost effective. They might under a completely unregualted system want to adjust their premiums, but to shut out business from senior citizens based on something coming up in a physical, if they required one, won't leave them with many seniors to insure. And the HMO plans that are currently competing against Medicare don't screen for existing condition so it isn't a problem for them.
I'm not sure what this means. I'm not concerned with whether or not this has been an issue, or whether or not it's politically viable. I haven't even commented on how best to deal with this. I was saying nothing more or less than that exclusion based on preexisting conditions is basically the heart of the concept of insurance, and people who mention it as if it were some kind of hole in the system are horrendously confused.

[will.15]

I already was wondering when Gloria Allred was going to stick her nose in the Cain fiasco and now she has. She dug up another woman. Cain finally took my advice and shut his big yap, but according to one recent poll it has already affected his poularity a bit and it isn't going to get any better. If he crashes, who is left to challenge Romney? Perry even with all his money looks done and the rest of them are a pretty sorry bunch. Maybe it will be Gingrich. Bachmann has become a joke and nobody likes Santorum. Ron Paul has his fans and might expand his support, but it is hard to see him actually winning a state.

[will.15]

Goodbye, Cain.

What that new woman is alleging is far worse than anything Clarence Thomas was accused of and the attorney for the other woman who received a settlement said her allegations are similiar. He is not going to survive this.

If the economy stays at this level or improves slightly, Obama's chances of being re-elected are fifty/fifty. The supposed rule, no incumbent was ever elected with unemployment over seven percent, is a bogus statistic. The reality is two Presidents were re-elected during a recession. And the number of Presidents who lost during a recession after Roosevelt (who won with worse unemployment) are only three.

[will.15]

Now the woman who was speaking through her lawyer has gone public and Cain says he won't step down. He will. It is just a matter of time now. As a presidential candidate he is a dead man walking. Now he is blaming Democrats, first it was Perry's fault. If it was Democrats who had this information, they would have sat on it to see if Cain got the nomination, then released it. With Cain out of the picture so early they are stuck with the only Republican candidate that gives them the jitters, Romney. It is amazing how one month makes such a difference. Obama's chances of being re-elected look a lot better now. But events keep changing. There is no way to predict the political climate next month or six months from now.

[DexterRiley]

If the Democrats were smart, they would run Obama through a Primary with say..Dennis Kucinich, Allen Grayson and a few others.

[will.15]

Poor Herman Cain, all these women he is accused of hitting on and he never scored with any of them.

[will.15]

I think the latest debate makes it clear Herman Cain is done.

The next flavor of the month will be Newt Gingrich.

There is no comeback trail for Rick Perry.

[stevo3001]

If the Democrats were smart, they would run Obama through a Primary with say..Dennis Kucinich, Allen Grayson and a few others.

Yeah, being contrasted against this feeble pile of morons and crazies is certainly making Romney look a whole lot better than he actually is. I don't see much to suggest that this 3/10-type candidate is going to be able to adjust successfully when he steps up 10 levels in the Presidential campaign.

[will.15]

Two out of three isn't bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDrHaksPvqE

[will.15]

Rick Perry didn't come across as the biggest idiot in this debate. It was Michele Bachmann.

To be competitive against China we should be more like them and get rid of food stamps, welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. Should we also have centralized government and government owned businesses as well, and get rid of civil liberties? Is she aware China is invoved in stimulus on a much wider scale than anything Obama tried or even conceived? Is she aware of the inflation that is taking a toll on the poor trying to keep food on the table? China is headed for a big fall and they are going to drag our economy down as well, but they are going to be in worse shape and their commie leaders may not survive (which would be a good thing). Will Bachmann still think then we should be more like China?

[will.15]

It looks like it is going to be Newt Gingrich versus Mitt Romney. Cain is done, Perry is doner, and if Republicans are so determined not to embrace Romney they are left with Gingrich who looks like a sure loser against Obama if he gets the nod. Having seen Gingrich in these debates, though he has done a good job, I have no doubt he will not do well in debates against Obama. He is articulate, but prickly and unlikeable. Independents are going to embrace a polarizing politician who can make no pretense he is a uniter not a divider?

[will.15]

Latest Iowa polls shows a close four way race... and Perry isn't in it, but Ron Paul is. I think the Iowa contest will be inconclusive, whoever wins will do so just barely. If all the top candidate are just barely in double digits it is not impossible Ron Paul will come out on top. That would probably be good for Romney because Paul isn't going to win any primaries. I still think this is the year South Carolina does not pick the winner. I think they go for Gingrich, but Romney takes Florida. As for Perry, he will probably drop out of it after Iowa, no later than SC. What a disaster he turned out to be. Good riddance.

[Yoda]

I mentioned quite a ways back that it was not interesting or useful to try to discuss politics with someone who just selectively posts only things that agree with them, or takes predictably partisan shots all the time or treats this thread like some kind of blog. That it was "preaching to the choir" stuff.

Eventually, I stopped replying to that stuff for a bit. And notice what's happened: you've posted 17 consecutive times about the campaign and not a single person has replied to those posts.

So have it your way, man. But that, as I warned, is going to be your choice: either you can display a semblance of objectivity and open-mindedness and have interesting discussions, or you can keep ranting about how stupid all those Republicans are. But if you choose the latter, you'll have to keep talking to yourself.

[will.15]

That is how you are seeing it, I am seeing it the way many people are seeing it. It is the way the Republican race has been going. It is not my fault Rick Perry has been a disaster, going from being the front runner in September to single digits in November. It is not my fault Paul Cain has women accusing him of sexual harassment, and was looking vulnerable even before that. It is not my fault Republicans are resisting the only one of this bunch that could beat Obama, Romney, although they are correct he would proclaim the world was flat if he thought that would get him elected. It is not my fault it is now not inconceivable Newt Gingrich could get the nomination even though he looks very weak against Obama. It never occurred to me when this started that this would be such a weak bunch. I even said so in a much earlier post that these were not weak candidates. I was wrong. As for nobody responding, either they don't care who will go against Obama or they don't find anything to disagree with. But it is still interesting to me and the race goes on with many interesting developments so I keep posting.

Oh, and by the way now the Republicans are talking about raising taxes, but on the upper middle class while cutting them even more for the very rich. Explain to me how that makes political sense (if you want to, if not that's okay).

[Yoda]

I guess you're going with that second option, then. Have fun.

If you ever want to argue actual policy, rather than anoint yourself as spokesman for the electorate, you be sure to let me know.

[will.15]

This thread is about who will be the Republican candidate, not a public policy debate. I am not speaking for the electorate, but I am making observations based on my perspective, which is what everyone does. I am hardly making an unusual statement when I say this is a weak bunch of Republicans as a group running for President as many Republicans have publicly made the same observation, which is what fueled the draft Christie movement a while back.

[Yoda]

No, you are not making an unusual statement when you call the group weak. But my problem is not with the occasionally benign statement you might make. Do not confuse my complaint for a complaint about whatever the very last thing you happened to say was. My problem is with your overzealous ramblings about Perry, and with the incredible contortions you must engage in to somehow determine that almost every bit of news is somehow bad news for Republicans, the results of various special elections probably being the most blatant example of this. That's probably the moment I started to realize how pointless this was.

I am all for some speculation and semi-objective analysis of the race and how it might shake out. I think that sort of thing is fun and interesting and I very much enjoy it. But that's not what you're doing here; you're using the news as a jumping off point to repeat complaints or take partisan jabs, usually framed through the same media narrative available to everyone else.

As I said, you can do that if you want. But I'm not interested in it, and so far I'm not sure anyone else is, either.

[will.15]

Strange as it may seem to you, I don't bring up every possible thing that might be bad news for Republicans. I never even mentioned what went on in Wisconsin and analysis of that I have seen, which applied it unfavorably for Republicans in the 2012 elections. Oh, I guess I just did, but I didn't go into a discussion of it. I also said earlier Republicans had a good chance of defeating Obama. Right now that looks less likely, but events are fluid. As for Perry, the guy is simply awful. If there was a Democrat like that I would be dumping on him also. Good thing for the country he nose dived in the polls.

[Yoda]

No, it's the other way: it's not that you bring up everything that could be bad for Republicans, it's that you interpret as bad for Republicans almost everything you bring up.

And yes, I know your reasoning on Perry is that he's just straight-up awful and therefore saying bigoted things about his accent are okay because he's just, like, that bad. I've heard it before. I can point you to the abruptly dropped line of argument about it if you care to revisit it, but it was beyond the pale. I don't even think it's arguable. The dude makes you lose your Cocoa Puffs.

Otherwise, as I said: enjoy the thread. It's all yours.

[will.15]

I'll go ahead and say what you were implying in that statement way, way back.

You are right.

Obama would not be President if he sounded like he came from the hood.

That is the reality. The problem isn't regional. Gingrich is a Southerner. But he doesn't sound like he came from a trailer park.

Perry has no class. We expect a certain amount of class from our presidents no matter what their background is.

[Brodinski]

I'll take on Obama in 2012 for the right purse. Where we fight wouldn't matter to me. I'd KO his ass in 3 anyway.

[will.15]

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CICAgMDO7fOprgEQ2AUYWjII4POzVoDVKbU (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BVDs0HmTFTs63DsW1kAWW9aTuDYzGjp4CvIzPpyPAjbcB4JgXEAEYASDstfYBOABQwOrD1AZgyd7ohsijkBmgAYGnif8DsgET d3d3Lm1vdmllZm9ydW1zLmNvbboBCTcyOHg5MF9hc8gBAtoBPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubW92aWVmb3J1bXMuY29tL2NvbW11bml0eS9z aG93dGhyZWFkLnBocD9wPTc3ODY1NoACAcgCsN3TAagDAcgDFegDjgPoA7IJ9QMAAADAoAYC&num=1&sig=AOD64_0iIBWcEg6m7Fqtb1xG5K7WcK6XLg&client=ca-pub-5749494218316031&adurl=http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/GOPPoll/Who-s-your-GOP-pick-for-2012-/id/34/kw/default%3FPROMO_CODE%3DD319-1&nm=2)

Oh, look at MoFo's latest banner in this section. I'll go with neither.

[will.15]

I'll take on Obama in 2012 for the right purse. Where we fight wouldn't matter to me. I'd KO his ass in 3 anyway.
What are you, 22? Obama is a skinny middle aged man.

[Yoda]

I'll go ahead and say what you were implying in that statement way, way back.

You are right.

Obama would not be President if he sounded like he came from the hood.

That is the reality. The problem isn't regional. Gingrich is a Southerner. But he doesn't sound like he came from a trailer park.

Perry has no class. We expect a certain amount of class from our presidents no matter what their background is.
No, my issue was not with making an observation about the way people--fairly or not--will react to accents. You attempted to make this conflation before, too, and I already explained that this isn't the issue. My problem is not with discussing the political impact of the way someone talks, it was with saying someone had a "low-class" accent and was therefore "trash" based on it. That was not a dispassionate observation about socioeconomic status and the way it influences elections. It was just a bitter, hateful remark, and it's disingenuous for you to continually try to frame it as if it were just some bit of commentary about what most other people would think.

[will.15]

I said with his background he could have lost the accent if he chose to. If he had a more polished sound and didn't speak so harshly some of the verbal gaffes would not have come across as bad. I said he sounded like white trash. I never said he was white trash. And, man, that New Hampshire speech was out of the Twilight Zone. I linked the entire version, not the highlights which was more widely circulated and made him look even more foolish. I actually try to be as fair as possible to him, but I really do find him odious.

[Yoda]

You said "How white trash can you get?" and then said he sounds like he "came out of the gutter" and was "low class."

It's incredible that you're trying to parse this down. And the fact that, every time I confront you with it, you try to contort it into a different discussion about the political reality of how people respond to accents--rather than what you actually said--really says a lot.

[will.15]

That is talking about his behavior.

Someone running for president if he wants to be taken seriiously has to use language better than Pick Perry and get away from regional slang. And even he now realizes you can't go full hillbilly in front of a national audience. His 'Y'all" was muttered in the very early stages, just after he announced, and he never uttered it in any of the debates and it seems very unlikely he has said it publicly since. He has made a few adjustments. He now understands he is not in Texas anymore and he has to at least try to sound a little less country.

[Yoda]

See? You just did it again. When I confront you with what you actually said, you try to pivot to a general discussion about the much more benign topic of how his accent will be perceived. Nobody is disputing that the way a candidate talks will influence how they are seen around the rest of the country. Stop trying to pretend my complaint is about that. It isn't.

[will.15]

Your example is me reacting to his behavior, not actually accusing him of being white trash. He was exhibiting behavior, using language, associated with white trash. "How white trash can you get" referred to the use of "Y'all." I never criticized him for how he came into this world.

[Yoda]

So, your response is to attempt to draw a line between calling someone white trash and saying "How white trash can you get?," and in drawing a line between not criticizing how someone was born and saying they sound like they came "from the gutter."

You'd make a really good bad lawyer.

[will.15]

I do make that distinction.

I would make a bad lawyer, but that is exactly how lawyers win cases.

[Yoda]

It's also why people hate lawyers.

[will.15]

Paris Hilton comes across like white trash and she was born super rich.

[will.15]

Last night's debate: Another bad performance from Rick Perry, Cain out of his element when he can't bring up the price of pizza, Romney back to safe mode and attacking Obama, ignoring Gingrich who he doesn't think is a threat (a mistake, he went after Perry, but allowed Cain to self destruct, Gingrich, however, is a lot smarter and formidable than Cain)), and Gingrich comes out for amnesty for illegals and wants to privatize Social Security.

Gingrich at least has an immigration policy that is understandable. As is usual with Rick Perry, his policy is incoherent. Gingrich supports en eventual path to citizenship. Perry does not, but supports a guest worker program. Perry complains the feds don't enforce immigration laws (but only complained about it when Obama became President), grandstanding by billing the United States for what it costs the state for allowing them to enter his state, but encourages those immigrants to migrate to Texas by giving immigrants in state tuition. Perry's hatred of federal power would allow each state to essentially have its own immigration policy competing with the federal government. And allowing a guest worker program without eliminating the illegals already here won't solve anything. Republicans in Congress will never support a guest worker program unless illegal immigrants are no longer in the United States

[will.15]

I am changing my prediction who is going to win the Republican nomination.

It is going tp be Newt Gingrich and if it is Obama's odds for a second term just got a lot better. Not a slam dunk, but more likely.

No more flavors of the month. It will be Newt and Romney battling it out.

[will.15]

I hope Romney hasn't opened the champagne bottle yet. Recent developments indicate Gingrich could win New Hampshire (and I think he will). Yeah, he's soft on immigration, but that wasn't really Perry's problem, it was poorly defending a Texas law that gave in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, saying opponents had no heart. Gingrich said something different and said it better. And he wasn't booed when he said it, unlike Perry. Tea party and social conservatives are going to find all the candidates less pure than they like, but Gingrich is close enough for most of them and at least they can be certain where he stands unlike Romney with his finger in the air trying to predict which way the wind is blowing. You add up all the Republican voters resisting Romney by supporting candidates far to the right of him and it adds up to eventual votes for Gingrich when they drop out or no longer matter.

[DexterRiley]

to bad a third party is really in control...the finance party. They have both democrat and republican members, some of them holding positions on obama's staff right now. They put on a convincing puppet show.

qft

[will.15]

Herman Cain may have actually scored after all.

Now a woman claims she had a long time affair with him.

At least he didn't harass her.

It is strange she waited so long to make this claim. His candidacy for president is already dead.

I prefer to think he just hit on women and never got anywhere with any of them

[will.15]

Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace — this is not an accusation of an assault - which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.
Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.
Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media
:rolleyes:

[will.15]

Herman Cain will drop out, it is just a matter of when. I think it will be before the weekend.

And Newt will be the beneficiary.

He will win Iowa, South Carolina, and might beat Romney in New Hampshire and probably at the least be a very strong second.

Florida?

Hard to say, but it is looking like Gingrich is turning into this year's McCain. If he can win in Florida Romney is done. If Romney gets Florida he has still a chance, but I now would put my non-existent money on Gingrich winning the nomination.

[DexterRiley]

Man oh Man i'd love to see Buddy Roemer to somehow get an invitation to one of the debates, but since the odds of that are slim and nil and slim left town, I think this fella could do some damage as a 3rd party independant ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agORfXLkb4c&feature=player_embedded

[makdnite]

Arnol Schwarzenegger for president! lmao! :)

[will.15]

My prediction Cain will drop out before the weekend is wrong, but he is announcing something today. I doubt it has anything to do with the price of pizza.

It is starting to look like Obama will join Ronald Reagan and FDR as presidents who were re-elected during a bad economy. Unemployment this month dipped below nine percent for the first time in two years, and if the downward trend continues with the likelihood he will be facing Gingrich instead of Romney means the election might not even be that close. Gingrich is already showing he is a better primary candidate than one for the general election with his comments about child labor laws and minority kids. I suspect Republicans will hold onto the House, but will lose seats and the tea party candidates will particularly take a hit and Dems hold on to the Senate. But Democrats may wish they were not reelected because the economy faces world threats neither party can do much about, the European debt crisis and China is a potential economic bomb that could explode. If that happens could the Communists face their own Spring revolt?

[7thson]

My prediction Cain will drop out before the weekend is wrong, but he is announcing something today. I doubt it has anything to do with the price of pizza.



You might be right about Cain, the funny thing is though: if it were allowed, if Bill Clinton ran for President as and independent he would win. This is all B.S.

[will.15]

It is official. Herman is out.

[Fiscal]

TheCainSolutions.com

lol

[stevo3001]

The Onion can still sum stories up succinctly-

'Rumors Of Extramarital Affair End Campaign Of Presidential Candidate Who Didn't Know China Has Nuclear Weapons'

[Fiscal]

Ron Paul with a horrible performance on Huckabbees even more horrible forum. Side note, I can't believe the Patriot Act is still defended so passionately.

[DexterRiley]

Man oh Man i'd love to see Buddy Roemer to somehow get an invitation to one of the debates, but since the odds of that are slim and nil and slim left town, I think this fella could do some damage as a 3rd party independant ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agORfXLkb4c&feature=player_embedded

Chris, why do you think this fella hasn't been allowed on stage yet? He certainly has more qualifications than Cain does.

[Yoda]

Each debate's requirements are different, but almost all of them have a polling percentage threshold.

[DexterRiley]

really. the very first debate, the pizza man with less experience than Obama had a polling threshold?

really?

[Yoda]

Heh; you're almost quoting Roemer verbatim with that phrasing.

And yeah, it wouldn't shock me. I'm not sure what Cain was polling at when the first debate came around, but he won a straw poll in late September, so I think he was probably polling at at least a few percentage points when these things started up. Regardless, each debate decides, independently, what criteria to use.

I'm not sure what criteria I would employ, but I'd definitely pick something like polling over something undefinable like qualifications or experience.

[DexterRiley]

Weird.

I could have sworn you railed about obama non stop for lack of qualifications or experience.

i must be mistaken.

[Yoda]

You are, but only about the relevance of the comparison. I have no problem with using qualifications or experience as an argument about a candidate's ability to be president. That is part of the necessary, subjective judgment of each voter. But those organizing debates must attempt to be more impartial, which means using objective measures like polling that rely on public support to dictate viability, rather than the whim or guess of a political journalist.

But, again, it is obvious that the point of these sorts of posts is to achieve maximum pithiness and sarcasm, even when that comes at the expense of making sense.

[will.15]

Newt is going steal it from Romney and I was saying it before he surged in the polls (not from the beginning, right after it was clear Cain was doomed). Romney is acting like he doesn't want to be the nominee at this point. What a weird way to go after Gingrich, by implying he was more faithful to his wife and religion. And his attacks on Obama were also getting bizarre as well. I was wrong. He is not the Republican party's strongest candidate against Obama, not the way he has been running lately. Repubs might as well take a flyer with Gingrich who still has to watch that mouth of his with comments about inner city kids and child labor laws.

[will.15]

Weird.

I could have sworn you railed about obama non stop for lack of qualifications or experience.

i must be mistaken.
He had more experience than Abraham Lincoln.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Being the big political thread here, I figured I'd post this whack ad here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

EDIT - Don't know why it won't let me show the video. Here is the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0PAJNntoRgA

[will.15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7vrLS4YKIg&feature=related
What a hysterical ad. Since it isn't directly paid by Romney's campaign I guess you can't technically say he is panicking, but that sure is the way it comes across. Romney calling Gingrich a flip flopper? That is like David Duke calling Archie Bunker a bigot. Now some Fox analysts who must be on crack are predicting Perry can make a comeback. No he can't. Perry's money for commercials won't help him at all, particularly with goofy commercials like the one in the previous post.

[DexterRiley]

Being the big political thread here, I figured I'd post this whack ad here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

EDIT - Don't know why it won't let me show the video. Here is the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0PAJNntoRgA

Isnt that the same jacket that Heath Ledger wore in brokeback mountain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbrI3F7p6-o&feature=player_embedded

[Monkeypunch]

Ummm, I am starting to think that this thread should be re-titled "Who will lose to Obama in 2012..." I have no confidence in ANY of these candidates.

[DexterRiley]

Don't be shocked if a 3rd party independant shows up to upset the apple cart.

[will.15]

And get one percent?

[wintertriangles]

I wish there was a "none of the above" choice sometimes

[DexterRiley]

Each debate's requirements are different, but almost all of them have a polling percentage threshold.

its ok, i found out. The requirement he didnt meet was having raised 500 grand in the 90 days preceding the debate.

Seeing as he isnt accepting dough from special interest lobbies, that pretty much is that.

Its the Money Lebowski.

[will.15]

Charles Babington
AP
WASHINGTON -Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's rapid rise in presidential polls has left veteran Republicans scratching their heads.

They're trying to figure out why Gingrich is supported by GOP voters who think he's not particularly honest and doesn't share their values. They wonder why Iowa evangelical Christians are flocking to a man who was unfaithful to two wives and who paid $300,000 in House ethics fines.

Some analysts say conservatives are willing to overlook Gingrich's faults because they love his willingness to confront the media, Congress and President Barack Obama.

Others say Gingrich may suffer if voters learn more about his record and past.

He is rising because there is no longer a viable alternative to Romney among the second string candidates. Ron Paul's appeal is too limited, Santorum is unlikeable, and Bachmann and Perry are too extreme and too prone to make verbal gaffes. Romney has been less impressive lately. I think he knows he is headed for another collapse. He seems to be incapable of speaking from the heart. He is all talking points. If the economy continues to mildly improve the vapid, hollow way he has been attacking Obama isn't going to work. Sure, Gingrich has flip-flopped, but he is an amateur compared to Romney. At least Gingrich is willing to take a position against the party mainstream to show he has some conviction. Romney always plays it safe and playing it safe before you are the nominee is often a recipe for disaster because you don't create any excitement among voters by doing that. Gingrich has a lot of negatives as the nominee, but at least he doesn't come across as a wind-up toy.

[MrPink]

gingrich is THE man.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/video/politics/2011/12/10/wr-gingrich-palestinian-people.cnn

[will.15]

CNN Political Ticker reports that Perry campaigned (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/11/perry-continues-campaign-push-in-iowa-faces-hecklers/) in the Hawkeye State, stopping in Ames. He focused on energy, taking shots at the Obama administration's handling of government spending.
"No greater example of it than this administration sending millions of dollars into the solar industry, and we lost that money," Perry said. "I want to say it was over $500 million that went to the country Solynda."

I agree with Perry. Cut off aid to Solynda, and Latvaria also. Doctor Doom is not our friend.

[will.15]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1215/Rasmussen-poll-shocker-Gingrich-tanks-in-Iowa-Romney-now-on-top

I still think Gingrich will win Iowa despite the poll. I think Romney's voters are not committed enough in a caucus vote and will desert him for other candidates. If Romney wins it, however, the nomination is his. I still think Gingrich takes Iowa, then has a surprisingly strong second finish in New Hampshire, or even wins, then takes South Carolina. Gingrich is making a big mistake not going after Romney. Apparently, he wants to reign in his dark, nasty side until after he gets the nomination to go after Obama. At least the nation doesn't have to worry about that buffoon Rick Perry getting the nomination.

[wintertriangles]

People should remember there's a reason that you can write in your vote

[will.15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpW74mJBCeU



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqSZFoNQqB0



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DGkluXodmw&feature=related

[will.15]

People criticize Romney for flip flopping, but look at what Perry has done. Because he needs the religious Christian vote to have any chance of doing well in Iowa, he has reversed himself and now is opposed to abortion without any exception, even rape and incest and to save the life of the mother. How does being against abortion to even save the mother make sense? Why should the mother's life be more important? Perry is pathetic.

[will.15]

Posted by: Joshua Green on December 29, 2011



It’s getting hard to imagine a plausible scenario in which Mitt Romney does not wind up as the Republican presidential nominee — he has the money, experience, and staff the other candidates lack, and enough dull appeal to remain competitive throughout. Plus, the Republicans who surpass him have the longevity of Spinal Tap drummers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCSMjHJAvg). The latest is Texas Representative Ron Paul, who holds a narrow lead in most recent polls of Iowa and so stands the best chance of beating Romney next Tuesday.
Paul’s late emergence is universally regarded as a stroke of good fortune for Romney, and a Paul victory in Iowa would be seen as merely delaying, rather than denying, Romney’s eventual coronation. In fact, many commentators are already dispensing with the usual pretense of calling him a ”long shot” and stating outright that Paul won’t become the nominee. They’re probably right — but at the same time, Iowans famously cherish their status as the first to weigh in on presidential candidates, and few would knowingly waste their vote.
So what’s going on? The best explanation could be that the diverging views of Ron Paul actually reflect different understandings of what a vote for him would signify.
Members of Congress and the national press view Paul as an amiable crank, more willing than most to stick to his libertarian principles - he once cast the lone vote to deny Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal because the Constitution doesn’t expressly authorize the expenditure - but chiefly concerned with making a point. As David Fahrenthold noted in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html), Paul has sponsored 620 measures in his lengthy congressional career, only four of which even made it to the House floor, and just one of which became law. Paul also embodies the implacable extremities of the Tea Party, a fading movement inside the Beltway that last week lost the big fight it had provoked over the payroll tax, and has come to be regarded as slightly passe.
Furthermore, many of Paul’s positions, such as his isolationism, are out of step with today’s Republican Party. These positions, along with his ties to the political fringe, would probably disqualify him were they better known. Just this week, a number of newspapers highlighted the vile, racist newsletters that Paul published in the 1990s, which, among other things, accused blacks of ”racial terrorism” and asserted that AIDS victims ”enjoy the attention and pity that comes from being sick.” (Paul claims he did not write them.) And as the caucuses loom, the other candidates have started drawing attention to these weaknesses. Paul has been written off because Washington observers assume that no one could survive such ugly revelations.
But most Republican caucus-goers in Iowa don’t have the same familiarity with Paul and still hold firm to the values that gave rise to the Tea Party. According to a recent Iowa State University poll (http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Vote-2012-Ron-Paul-Takes-Lead-in-KCRGGazette-Poll-135977303.html), the most important issues to the respondents were ”jobs and the economy” (35 percent), ”the size and role of the federal government” (24 percent), and “the national debt and the deficit” (22 percent). By a healthy margin, respondents were also looking for a nominee who would ”take a strong stand” over one who seemed more electable in November. Not surprisingly, Paul was the voters’ first choice. Even those who do not support him routinely say they view him as the most consistent potential nominee.
In light of how the race has developed, it’s also unsurprising that Paul’s support has been steadily building up. Candidates like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, who were initially touted as staunch conservative alternatives to Romney, have been exposed as apostates on issues ranging from immigration and individual liberty (Perry) to health-care mandates, lobbying, and the government’s role in the housing market (Gingrich). Paul is the natural repository of support from voters frustrated by these revelations.
But influential as these voters are in determining who wins the caucuses, they’re only a sliver of the electorate - historically, about 3 to 5 percent of Iowa’s adult population. That may be why, as seriously as Iowans take their duty, the caucus winner rarely goes on to seize the nomination, and is more likely to spontaneously self-combust like that unfortunate Spinal Tap drummer.
Joshua Green writes a weekly column for the Boston Globe. Follow him on Twitter

[DexterRiley]

People should remember there's a reason that you can write in your vote

except in Virginia apparently, which means a sad day for Newt.

:laugh:

he can either vote for Romney, Paul, or not at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yitzY9W4o_0

[will.15]

Gingrich said he would never vote for Ron Paul so I guess he is voting for Romney.

[will.15]

So now Rick Santorum is the new flavor of the month.

Romney is looking like an incredibly weak candidate because he can't move beyond twenty-four or some percent. Too many Republicans don't like him and want someone, apparently anyone, else.

Now every candidate has been the anti Romney candidate except Huntsman who should just give it up. Santorum has been the last because he is the weakest. It is too bad Gingrich didn't have any money to counter the anti Gingrich ads that blanketed Iowa because with all of his weaknesses he is still a stronger candidate than Santorum. it is interesting every time a candidate opposing Romney has dropped in the polls he has never had a comeback. Even Perry's money has been unable to revive his campaign.

Even if Santorum comes in first or second in Iowa he has nowhere to go. He has been campaigning strictly in Iowa. He has little presence in New Hampshire. If Romney needs to go after Santorum with negative ads in South Carolina he will and he will be in the same boat as Gingrich. Florida he has no chance at all.

[will.15]

Unless Gingrich or Santorum can slow down Romney in South Carolina, it looks he is the nominee.

Rick Perry suspended his campaign and is probably getting out altogether.

Good. He was such a disaster as a candidate it is hard to understand what the hell Texans see in him.

Ron Paul may stay in the race, but is now irrelevant with his third place finish as a serious candidate.

[will.15]

Yesterday Bachmann said she was staying in, but she changed her mind today. She is gone, Perry probably gone. Gingrich needs to win South Carolina or he is no longer a serious candidate. I wouldn't rule out a Gingrich comeback if he can put ads on the air. It is hard to accept Santorum as the only serious alternative to Romney. I think he did as well as he did in Iowa because there was no one else for the social conservatives to turn to. He became the only game in town after they soured on Gingrich.

Perry changed his mind. he is still in, going to go for South Carolina. He has money so maybe he has a shot there.

But I doubt it. I think even social conservatives realize he is a bozo with no chance against Obama.

[will.15]

Like I said, Bozo:

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-01/375265260-04084623.jpg
Rick Perry gives a thumbs up in a photo posted to his Twitter account Wednesday. After signaling he would suspend his campaign Tuesday, Perry tweeted that he'll carry on to South Carolina. (YFrog.com

[DexterRiley]

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrX5sFMedw

[will.15]

God only talks to him when he forgets to take his meds.

[will.15]

The negative stuff is already coming out about Rick Santorum and there is plenty of it. Iowa will be the last state he will almost win. Unless Gingrich, and I can't see anyone else who can do it, stages a comeback in South Carolina, there is no stopping Romney, who most Republicans have a problem with.

[wintertriangles]

Can someone tell me how the **** people are defending Santorum's fetus story?

[will.15]

And Romny strapped his dog to the roof of the car and it defecated with stuff running down the windows while driving.

Way to go, Republican Party.

[Yoda]

Way to go, Will, for tackling the substantive issues.

Man oh man, did I ever make the right decision in letting you just have this thread to yourself, not only because it's been the quickest and surest way to make sure the fewest people possible read it.

[will.15]

Why Are You picking on me? Wintertriangles brought up Santorum letting his kids play with the dead baby story.

[Yoda]

Because you've been doing this for a really long time.

[wintertriangles]

I still think I have a legitimate question

[honeykid]

I've come to the conclusion that the Republican Party is basically a Fundementalist Christian cult now.

That is all.

[wintertriangles]

Ron Paul is the only main one running who isn't pushing his religion

[Yoda]

I've come to the conclusion that the Republican Party is basically a Fundementalist Christian cult now.
I've come to the conclusion that you've come to this conclusion because you're shockingly anti-religious in general. You don't think the Republican Party is a Christian cult, you think all of Christianity is a cult, so statements like this (apart from being literally/technically wrong) are kind of meaningless.

[Yoda]

Ron Paul is the only main one running who isn't pushing his religion
How do you figure this? Leaving aside the fact that "pushing" one's religion now seems to involve just talking about it with any kind of regularity, I don't see how this is even remotely true. I don't recall Romney trying to convert any one to Mormanism, and Newt doesn't push his religion much, either. He usually only invokes it when talking about his own personal failings.

This quote should read "Ron Paul is the only significant candidate who talks about his religion less than Perry and Santorum."

[honeykid]

I've come to the conclusion that you've come to this conclusion because you're shockingly anti-religious in general. You don't think the Republican Party is a Christian cult, you think all of Christianity is a cult, so statements like this (apart from being literally/technically wrong) are kind of meaningless.
I certainly am anti-religion. All religions are cults, but that's not a meaningless statement, nor is it incorrect.

Saying God every 5 minutes is just the American way of politics, otherwise people might start thinking your a satanist or something. There seems to be some kind of correlation between saying God and being honest in the minds of the politicians, if not the voting public.

[will.15]

Mitt Romny and Rick Santorum approve this message.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57KDDKbfhmI

I just saw a clip of that guy singing that in concert. He looks like Richard Dreyfuss.

[mojofilter]

Nobody is taking on Obama. He is going to win the re-election.

The Republican Party doesn't have the chance to take over the White House, at least not for the next 2 or 3 presidential elections.

[wintertriangles]

Nobody is taking on Obama. He is going to win the re-election.If he wins it proves that our votes don't count. I don't know how unthinkably stupid you would have to be to re-elect one of the worst presidents of all time.

[will.15]

Don't be so negative. Hug a fetus. It will cheer you up.

[DexterRiley]

If he wins it proves that our votes don't count. I don't know how unthinkably stupid you would have to be to re-elect one of the worst presidents of all time.


lol @ worst presidents of all time.

Obama has been far from great, but he did inherit arguably the worst set of circumstances of any president over the last 40 years or so.

[wintertriangles]

lol @ worst presidents of all time.

Obama has been far from great, but he did inherit arguably the worst set of circumstances of any president over the last 40 years or so.I'm not defending Bush. Technically you could say something similar for a lot of the presidents of the past 40 years or so since most of them haven't progressed the system forward. Tug-of-war doesn't procure results. The other reason I don't buy that excuse is because Obama basically continued what Bush did for the most part.

[mojofilter]

I'm not defending Bush. Technically you could say something similar for a lot of the presidents of the past 40 years or so since most of them haven't progressed the system forward. Tug-of-war doesn't procure results. The other reason I don't buy that excuse is because Obama basically continued what Bush did for the most part.

It's not Obama being great or not, it's about the Republican Party becoming a big joke. I don't trust any candidate from the GOP, with the exception of Ron Paul who sadly doesn't have a chance to win the candidacy (I hope I'm wrong), and I don't see America becoming a better country with one of them taking over as president.

I'd rather have Obama over Newt, Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and the rest of those nutjobs.

[DexterRiley]

I'm not defending Bush. Technically you could say something similar for a lot of the presidents of the past 40 years or so since most of them haven't progressed the system forward. Tug-of-war doesn't procure results. The other reason I don't buy that excuse is because Obama basically continued what Bush did for the most part.


Obama has been a Sh!tty president primarily because he tried crossing teh aisle to build relationships with an opps that wouldnt carry his water if they were on fire.

The 2 party system has been corrupted so badly, it blows me the heck away to be perfectly candid.

Good luck ever getten campaign finance reform though. Heck Obama couldnt even support Elisabeth Warren, who will get the last laugh when she crushes in the Senate race in Mass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

The occupy movement was a welcome start, unfortunately Obama chose to effectively criminalize dissent with that goofy law which had bi-partisan support.

Which is crazyville.

[wintertriangles]

EDIT: Future bleak, no point in extending that thought

[DexterRiley]

3rd party, populist Candidate. yanno someone that represents the 280 million or so disenfranchised Americans.

Thats the ticket.

[Yoda]

I certainly am anti-religion. All religions are cults, but that's not a meaningless statement, nor is it incorrect.
It is both those things, for the following reasons:

It's meaningless because descriptors like "fundamentalist" and "cult" serve no purpose when you believe all religion qualifies. Statements about religious extremism only have weight when you first believe there's such a thing as non-extreme religion. You don't, so your statement might as well be "hey everybody, I still don't like religion." Which, believe me, we knew; you don't miss many opportunities to issue reminders.

It's incorrect because there are large swaths of the Republican party that are primarily concerned with economic issues. The Larry Kudlow types. Many of the Ron Paul supporters. The Club for Growth. The Randians, especially, who are not only not religious but very often hostile to religion, as Rand was. The fact that Romney is a viable candidate despite being from another religion than most of the electorate undermines what you're saying, as well. There are plenty of contrary examples like this.

[Yoda]

Nobody is taking on Obama. He is going to win the re-election.

The Republican Party doesn't have the chance to take over the White House, at least not for the next 2 or 3 presidential elections.
Betting markets have Obama as a slight (51%, last I looked) favorite, which I think is a little low but mostly correct, so if you actually believe this you can go and make yourself a lot of money.

Regarding the "next 2 or 3 presidential elections." Man, I'd give you 20-1 odds on something like that. The probability of a party switch increase dramatically after one party has held the office for 2 or 3 terms, and that'd be true even if Obama were wildly popular right now, when he's most assuredly not.

[Yoda]

I still think I have a legitimate question
You're probably asking it in the wrong place, because most people in this thread don't like conservatives in general, and the conservatives like myself don't much like Rick Santorum (I can expound on this if necessary). But if you want to know how someone could possibly defend it, read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/rick-santorums-baby--and-mine/2011/03/04/gIQA0uH1eP_blog.html).

[will.15]

You're probably asking it in the wrong place, because most people in this thread don't like conservatives in general, and the conservatives like myself don't much like Rick Santorum (I can expound on this if necessary). But if you want to know how someone could possibly defend it, read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/rick-santorums-baby--and-mine/2011/03/04/gIQA0uH1eP_blog.html).
Why don't you like Santorum?

I'm no fan either, but he is still better than Rick Perry who you seem to like.

[wintertriangles]

You're probably asking it in the wrong place, because most people in this thread don't like conservatives in general, and the conservatives like myself don't much like Rick Santorum (I can expound on this if necessary). But if you want to know how someone could possibly defend it, read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/rick-santorums-baby--and-mine/2011/03/04/gIQA0uH1eP_blog.html).There's so much wrong with that link as well as all others I've seen that defend him, especially the psychiatrists who were certainly paid to say it isn't weird. They never go into the detail to which Santorum introduced the corpse to his children as their brother, played with it, and slept with it. I would even say that the person defending him in the article you provided is almost as bad, taking a picture with a miscarriage; I thought the body was a prison for the soul, what good is the body to them? I'm all for grieving in your own way but this is just beyond the pale.
Why don't you like Santorum?

I'm no fan either, but he is still better than Rick Perry who you seem to like.Comparing pieces of crap will not help the election.

[will.15]

Alright, I read that, and I don't have a problem with what he and his wife did in their bedroom. That is their business. But showing the dead baby or fetus or whatever to their children and encouraging them to play with it is downright weird and creepy and I don't think is a good idea at all. His parenting skills are from The Twilight Zone.

[Yoda]

Why don't you like Santorum?

I'm no fan either, but he is still better than Rick Perry who you seem to like.
Because he's a politician before he's a conservative. He talks a lot about not compromising for things like electability, but his endorsements have always told another story; he endorsed Romney over Huckabee in '08 because he thought it would help stop McCain. He endorsed Specter (who is pro-choice) over Toomey in the primaries. On economic issues, he's often not that conservative at all. There are lots of holes in the narrative he's trying to create as the purest conservative option.

[Yoda]

There's so much wrong with that link as well as all others I've seen that defend him, especially the psychiatrists who were certainly paid to say it isn't weird. They never go into the detail to which Santorum introduced the corpse to his children as their brother, played with it, and slept with it. I would even say that the person defending him in the article you provided is almost as bad, taking a picture with a miscarriage; I thought the body was a prison for the soul, what good is the body to them? I'm all for grieving in your own way but this is just beyond the pale.
Well, then you're not for grieving in your own way at all, are you? You asked how someone could defend it, so there it is. If you're unmoved by it, then I suppose all that's left to do is marvel at the irony that this exhibits the same sort of narrow-minded judgmentalism that Santorum is so often accused of (and sometimes certainly guilty of). These people have been through a tragedy and a trauma. What's beyond the pale is trying to parse it down so you can decide how "weird" you think it is.

Also...did I miss something on this "psychiatrists who were certainly paid to say it isn't weird"? Is that an actual fact, or are you just pulling the accusation out of the air?

[will.15]

Because he's a politician before he's a conservative. He talks a lot about not compromising for things like electability, but his endorsements have always told another story; he endorsed Romney over Huckabee in '08 because he thought it would help stop McCain. He endorsed Specter (who is pro-choice) over Toomey in the primaries. On economic issues, he's often not that conservative at all. There are lots of holes in the narrative he's trying to create as the purest conservative option.
All of them except maybe Bachmann are politicians to some extent before they are conservatives, even Ron Paul who puts earmarks in appropriation bills for his district before he voted against them.

[wintertriangles]

Well, then you're not for grieving in your own way at all, are you? You asked how someone could defend it, so there it is. If you're unmoved by it, then I suppose all that's left to do is marvel at the irony that this exhibits the same sort of narrow-minded judgmentalism that Santorum is so often accused of (and sometimes certainly guilty of). These people have been through a tragedy and a trauma. What's beyond the pale is trying to parse it down so you can decide how "weird" you think it is.1) Fine, I'm not for grieving in your own way if it leads to that type of action. Not really proving anything there, sir. I'm not at all criticizing them because they went through a trauma and handled it oddly, I'm much more concerned that this is a person who might be the president and has very screwy tendencies. If it was anyone but a famous person who this was about, it wouldn't be getting near the amount of defense it has gotten.

2) You just judged my judgment as narrow-minded. Irony? Judgment exists in the bulk of all clauses spoken by man, calling one out on me that isn't remotely unthinkable is pretty useless, and the comparison even moreso because, besides not being offensive like most of Santorum's judgments against muslims and gays, Santorum doesn't even think he's judging anyone.

Also...did I miss something on this "psychiatrists who were certainly paid to say it isn't weird"? Is that an actual fact, or are you just pulling the accusation out of the air?No, this article (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/rick-santorum-dead-baby-critics-lambasted-families-grieve/story?id=15306750#.TwiFspjA2eU) features a psychiatrist's explanation.

[Yoda]

1) Fine, I'm not for grieving in your own way if it leads to that type of action. Not really proving anything there, sir. I'm not at all criticizing them because they went through a trauma and handled it oddly, I'm much more concerned that this is a person who might be the president and has very screwy tendencies. If it was anyone but a famous person who this was about, it wouldn't be getting near the amount of defense it has gotten.
Yes, of course you're "criticizing them because they went through a trauma and handled it oddly." The fact that they're famous, and thus being scrutinized more than most, doesn't change the underlying equation. Unless you want to make the argument that this is fine for a normal couple to do, but somehow troublesome for a politician's family to do, though I don't see how one could.

Either it's an understandable way to grieve, or not. That question doesn't change with the person's profession.

2) You just judged my judgment as narrow-minded. Irony? Judgment exists in the bulk of all clauses spoken by man, calling one out on me that isn't remotely unthinkable is pretty useless, and the comparison even moreso because, besides not being offensive like most of Santorum's judgments against muslims and gays, Santorum doesn't even think he's judging anyone.
I didn't say I was against the idea of judgment; to the contrary, I think the word has overly negative connotations, for reasons like the one you just mentioned. Any opinion is a judgment, at its core. This is about consistency. If someone has a problem with Santorum's judgmentalism, they can't turn around and try to dissect his grieving process, too.

I'm not sure where the idea that Santorum "doesn't even think he's judging anyone" comes from. Nor do I see how you can simply declare that the way people are reacting to this story is "not being offensive." I sure find it offensive. I think it's presumptuous and shows a deficit of basic human empathy.

No, this article (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/rick-santorum-dead-baby-critics-lambasted-families-grieve/story?id=15306750#.TwiFspjA2eU) features a psychiatrist's explanation.
This article is something I would've gladly cited in defense of my own position: the worst thing it says about all this is that part of it is "unusual." But it also says it was "understandable," that such things were more encouraged then, and even that they may have been "ahead of their time" in all the other actions. The quote at the end even says there's "nothing pathological about it or particularly alarming." I think the article's dead-on, personally. Unusual, but not alarming or troublesome.

And it sure doesn't say anything to support the idea that psychiatrists are being bribed, for crying out loud.

[DexterRiley]

You're probably asking it in the wrong place, because most people in this thread don't like conservatives in general, and the conservatives like myself don't much like Rick Santorum (I can expound on this if necessary). But if you want to know how someone could possibly defend it, read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/rick-santorums-baby--and-mine/2011/03/04/gIQA0uH1eP_blog.html).

I love Conservatives. I am one myself, but what does that have to do with the Republican party?

:laugh:

[Yoda]

In the context of this discussion, which is American politics, you're not a conservative. All you're illustrating is that people use the term differently, which is certainly true but not particularly important.

[DexterRiley]

Can an American not be a war hawk nor have wear his religion on his sleeve and still be allowed to be considered a conservative?

I mean its a fluke i happened to be born on this side of an arbritrary line.

[Yoda]

Sure, I think they can, but that's not the question because that doesn't accurately summarize your political positions. You're for socialized health care, much higher taxes on the wealthy, you're pro-choice, you want more business regulations, and you want a much higher minimum wage, just to name a few things. In America, that makes you very, very far from conservative.

If you want to say the word means something different to you and the people where you're from, that may be true. I wouldn't know.

[will.15]

Look at the standard definitions of conservative versus reactionary and it is clear many so-called conservatives are really reactionaries.

[Yoda]

The definitions are useless. As society has changed, many conservatives find themselves proposing changes, and not supporting the "conservation" of things. School choice is a great example: on that issue, "progressives" are for the status quo and "conservatives" are for the social reform.

The terms are ephemeral and ever-changing. The only reason to try to tie someone to one or another (like "reactionary") is to try to reap political benefit from the previous connotations attached to it.

[will.15]

But liberals support reform involving government and conservatives want reform that involves less government so school choice does not change the definition for what is a conservative versus a liberal. And liberals don't support the status quo for public education as they support charter schools and other reforms, but not the conservative preference which is to sabotage public schools.

[Yoda]

Er, no, some liberals support some form of charter schools, but there's no arguing the idea that most don't, and that of the two ideologies conservatives are far more likely to be in support of them. That said, if you want to start a thread to argue about school choice (screechy rhetoric about conservatives "sabotaging" public schools doesn't qualify, I'm afraid), you know I'll gladly participate. Any time, guy.

But that's beside the point. The words here are about conservation and opposition to social change; stipulating that this social change must be government-centric is an arbitrary qualifier.

Most importantly, though, is that this introduces no new argument or information into any issue. The underlying arguments do not change if you change the word you wish to use to try to aggregate them. Which goes right back to my point in the last post: the only reason to argue about it at all is because one word has more or less negative connotations attached to it. It's political maneuvering, not fact, argument, or insight.

[will.15]

If most liberals don't support charter schools, then why are they common in school districts where hardly any conservatives get elected to school boards?

[Yoda]

Firstly, source the claim if you want me to answer it. Secondly, numerous charter school programs are instituted on, say, statewide levels. Not all policy is made at an individual district level, so your question assumes a connection between local political ideology and control that isn't necessarily there. Thirdly, even if they had control and what you say is true, that doesn't contradict the idea that most don't; it's entirely possible that most aren't in the districts where it happens, and thus oppose it only because they don't see, firsthand, how necessary it is. There's a logical disconnect in your assumption there.

But, again: if you want to argue school choice, we should start a thread. That wasn't idle bluster. I would gladly participate. I welcome any chance to talk about it, because it's a winning issue for conservatives.

[will.15]

Los Angeles has hardly any conservatives on the school board. There is a divison between school union supporters and reformers, but the reformers are rarely Republicans. State legislation, and this is a Democratic controlled legislature state, sets guidelines, but charter schools are not mandatory and school districts run the show.

http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,205131&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP

[Yoda]

Man, tons of qualifiers in here that you completely left out before. According to that link, the existing districts run the show, they're held to different standards, they can't use existing private or parochial schools, and on and on and on. This is a very augmented example of charter schooling. Which is not to say it's a terrible idea, but my guess is it wouldn't fly in Los Angeles without all those qualifications.

Regardless, the rest of my reply still works. You said this was "common," and implied that it was so common as to somehow demonstrate that it represented "most" liberals. I see no evidence of that, and there sure isn't much reflected of the idea on the national level. If the idea can fly in some places (though augmented to make it more tolerable to liberals), hey, great. That doesn't contradict what I said, though. In general, conservatives are much more supportive of school choice than liberals. True or false?

[wintertriangles]

Yes, of course you're "criticizing them because they went through a trauma and handled it oddly." The fact that they're famous, and thus being scrutinized more than most, doesn't change the underlying equation. Unless you want to make the argument that this is fine for a normal couple to do, but somehow troublesome for a politician's family to do, though I don't see how one could. Either it's an understandable way to grieve, or not. That question doesn't change with the person's profession. Uh. You're the one making it seem like I'm judging because he's famous, I would had a similar reaction to anyone else. I already clarified why it's more of a problem.
I didn't say I was against the idea of judgment; to the contrary, I think the word has overly negative connotations, for reasons like the one you just mentioned. Any opinion is a judgment, at its core. This is about consistency. If someone has a problem with Santorum's judgmentalism, they can't turn around and try to dissect his grieving process, too.Again, you're adding things that aren't there. This is clearly not what I did.

I'm not sure where the idea that Santorum "doesn't even think he's judging anyone" comes from. Nor do I see how you can simply declare that the way people are reacting to this story is "not being offensive." I sure find it offensive. I think it's presumptuous and shows a deficit of basic human empathy.He makes it clear every time he talks about something controversial that he thinks his opinion is fact, and therefore I can safely imply he doesn't think he's making judgments. This isn't that hard. Also, you're claiming anyone with an alternate opinion towards this story lacks empathy when, as I already explained, it's not about empathy, it's about going too far. You're making this way too complicated.

This article is something I would've gladly cited in defense of my own position: the worst thing it says about all this is that part of it is "unusual." But it also says it was "understandable," that such things were more encouraged then, and even that they may have been "ahead of their time" in all the other actions. The quote at the end even says there's "nothing pathological about it or particularly alarming." I think the article's dead-on, personally. Unusual, but not alarming or troublesome.I only cited the article because you asked me. Man you're off the mark today.

And it sure doesn't say anything to support the idea that psychiatrists are being bribed, for crying out loud.First of all, was a joke. Second of all, why would CNN admit their program is wholly influenced by the left? The article wouldn't hint that either. Weird thing to bring up.

[DexterRiley]

The definitions are useless. As society has changed, many conservatives find themselves proposing changes, and not supporting the "conservation" of things. School choice is a great example: on that issue, "progressives" are for the status quo and "conservatives" are for the social reform.

The terms are ephemeral and ever-changing. The only reason to try to tie someone to one or another (like "reactionary") is to try to reap political benefit from the previous connotations attached to it.

im ok with the tax rates that were in place under Reagan, and the healthcare currently provided to ever Republican politician that publically poo poo's it for all Americans.

hows that?

[DexterRiley]

i quoted the wrong Yoda post.

Basically, i cant fathom how one can be considered a Conservative if they are A-ok with massive Tax cuts while at the same time running 2 wars on credit and giving 4 trillion dollars away to big banks.

thats a head scratcher.

[will.15]

And these days they only want to give tax cuts to the rich.

[honeykid]

It is both those things, for the following reasons:

It's meaningless because descriptors like "fundamentalist" and "cult" serve no purpose when you believe all religion qualifies. Statements about religious extremism only have weight when you first believe there's such a thing as non-extreme religion. You don't, so your statement might as well be "hey everybody, I still don't like religion." Which, believe me, we knew; you don't miss many opportunities to issue reminders.

It's incorrect because there are large swaths of the Republican party that are primarily concerned with economic issues. The Larry Kudlow types. Many of the Ron Paul supporters. The Club for Growth. The Randians, especially, who are not only not religious but very often hostile to religion, as Rand was. The fact that Romney is a viable candidate despite being from another religion than most of the electorate undermines what you're saying, as well. There are plenty of contrary examples like this.
The first part's not quite right. Just to clear things up. All religions are cults. I'd think a quick look in most (if not all) dictionaries would confirm this. It's obvious that not all religious people or sects are fundementalist or extreme. After all, I live in England, where we have the Church Of England. You could call them a lot of things, but extreme isn't one of them. Well, not unless we're discussing the traditional ingredients of a Christmas Pudding or judging a baking contest anyway.

[DexterRiley]

Would a fiscally responsible small government family values guy be allowed on the GOP stage if he said Allah told him to run, and sprinkled praise be upon allah whilst engaging in policy discussion?

Nope, i think its intelectually disengenuous to pretend all religions are the same, as it relates to American Politics.

Speaking of Family Values for a moment, how is Newt escaping mass criticm for his adulterous ways?

He was the speaker when Clinton was being roasted over an open fire wasnt he?

[will.15]

He has not escaped criticism.

[will.15]

Conservatives Want America to be a "Christian Nation" -- Here's What That Would Actually Look Like
Let's compare Rick Perry's version of "Christian values" to what the Bible really dictates.
October 4, 2011 |

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_picture2.jpg_310x220


In a campaign speech in September (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-15/perry-woos-evangelicals-in-urging-christian-values-as-guide.html), Rick Perry hit upon some familiar Republican themes. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-15/perry-woos-evangelicals-in-urging-christian-values-as-guide.html) article:


Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, in an appeal to evangelical voters, said "Christian values" and not "a bunch of Washington politicians" should be the touchstone guiding how Americans conduct their lives. ..."America is going to be guided by some set of values," Perry told a crowd of 13,000 students and faculty members yesterday at a sports arena on the school's campus. "The question is going to be, 'Whose values?'" He said it should be "those Christian values that this country was based upon." It's worth calling attention to Perry's obnoxious rhetorical ploy of using "Christian values" to refer only to his own very specific, right-wing set of beliefs -- preemptive war, gay-bashing, tax cuts for the rich, creationism in schools, deregulating corporations, dismantling the social safety net, the standard Republican package -- as if he owned or had the right to define all of Christianity. In reality, there's such a huge diversity of opinion among self-professed Christians past and present that the term "Christian values" could mean almost anything.
Christians have been communists and socialists (including Francis Bellamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy), the author of the Pledge of Allegiance); Christians have supported empire and dictatorship (including Mussolini, who made Catholicism the official state religion of fascist Italy). Christians have advocated positions across the political spectrum, from environmental preservation to environmental destruction, from pacifism to just war to open advocacy of genocide (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2011/04/another-world-creeps-in.html), from civil rights to segregation and slavery (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2011/01/the-abolition-spirit-is-undeniably-atheistic.html).
This broad range of opinion comes about because the Bible never mentions many of these issues, and addresses others in only vague or contradictory passages scattered throughout its individual books. This gives individual Christians wide latitude to find support in the text for virtually any political position you'd care to name.
However, there's one area where there's much less room for debate, and that's the question of political organization. The Bible sets out a very clear picture of what its authors believed the ideal state would look like. Coincidentally, this is the same subject Rick Perry was speaking to: "those Christian values that this country was based upon." We can compare this statement to the dictates of the Bible to see what it would mean to have a government based on "Christian values." Then we'll be in a better position to decide whether America has such a government.
According to the Old Testament of the Bible, after escaping Egypt and reaching the promised land, the twelve tribes of Israel were united into a single country under David and Solomon. After Solomon's death, there was a rebellion, and the country split into two separate kingdoms, Israel and Judah, which lasted until the Assyrian empire destroyed Israel and carried its people off into exile. Both these kingdoms survived for several hundred years, and therefore there's more than enough written history to tell what the Bible's authors thought of as a good state or a bad state.
But right away, there's a problem. The Bible never even mentions democracy -- that concept was completely unknown to its authors. The system of government it enshrines is divine-right monarchy -- and not just monarchy, but kingship. Under normal circumstances, the Bible is very clear that the throne passes only from father to son. (The sole exception was Athaliah, a queen of Judah who came to power in a bloody coup and whose reign lasted only six years.)
Even more to the point, the Bible's ideal government is unequivocally a theocracy: a country where the church and the state are one, where there's an official religion which all citizens are required to profess, and where law is made by the priests. There was no religious freedom in the ancient Israelite kingdoms: all people were required to worship the same god in the same officially approved ways, on pain of death. For instance, when Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai and finds the Israelites worshipping a golden calf, his immediate response is to order the butchering of everyone who participated in idolatry (Exodus 32:27). Many of Israel's subsequent kings do likewise. The Bible goes so far as to say that, if pagan worshippers are discovered in any city, the entire city should be burned down and everyone who lives there should be killed (Deuteronomy 13:12-16).
The Bible also puts a high value on racial purity. The Israelites were the chosen people of God, and were instructed to keep themselves separate. Time and again, they were sternly warned against marrying people of another race, tribe or ethnicity. For instance, the Old Testament pronounces a perpetual curse on the neighboring Ammonite and Moabite tribes, saying that any person descended from either one, even down to the tenth generation, "shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord" (Deuteronomy 23:3). In one of the Old Testament's most gruesome stories, a priest named Phinehas finds an Israelite man having sex with a Midianite woman, and impales them both on the same spear (Numbers 25:6-8). For doing this, he's praised as a hero of faith, and God rewards him with "the covenant of an everlasting priesthood." When the Israelites invade and conquer neighboring lands, God instructs them to massacre all the captives, including women, so that they're not tempted to intermarry with them (Deuteronomy 7:2).
By the time of the New Testament, much of this had changed. Christians weren't all of one ethnicity, nor did they have their own country. They were scattered throughout the powerful, militaristic Roman Empire, governed by absolute rulers who were brutally intolerant of dissent. In light of this, it's little surprise that the New Testament teaches the virtue of submission to the authorities. It states unequivocally that earthly rulers, even when they act unjustly, are ordained to their position by God and that Christian believers should obey them without question -- in fact, it states that those who resist are in peril of eternal damnation (Romans 13:1-2).
All these ideas, so clearly advocated in the Bible, are utterly contrary to what this nation stands for (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/is-america-a-christian-nation.html). The idea of divine-right kingship is what our founders successfully rebelled against in bringing forth this country. America is a democracy where the people choose their leaders, a constitutional republic where the powers of those leaders are strictly defined and limited by law. America is a multicultural, multiethnic nation founded on the idea of welcoming immigrants, the homeless and tempest-tossed of every land. Submission to the established authorities, of course, isn't an American value: Americans have a long and colorful history of debate, protest, and civil disobedience, and the right to criticize our leaders is sanctified in the Constitution. And most of all, America is a secular nation with a separation of church and state. We have no official faith, no national church as many European countries still do.
But America's Constitution is more than just a secular document; it's literally godless. It doesn't claim that the ideas it contains were the product of divine revelation. It states that governing power comes from the will of the people, not the commands of a deity. It doesn't assert that God has specially blessed this nation or shown it special favor -- in fact, it never mentions God at all. And it mentions religion in only two places, both of them negative mentions: in Article VI, which forbids any religious test for public office, and in the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion.
If America's founders had meant to establish a Christian nation, this is where they would have said so. But they said no such thing. And this leads into a historical fact that the religious right would dearly love to forget: the godlessness of the Constitution was a point of major controversy in the debate over ratification. When it was drafted, the fact that it made no explicit mention of God or Christianity wasn't a minor oversight. It was a major, deliberate omission that was obvious to all. Religious language was omnipresent in other legal documents and charters of the day, including the ones that inspired the Constitution in the first place.
For example, the Constitution's precursor, the Articles of Confederation, explicitly gives God the credit (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) for making the state legislatures agree to it: "...it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union."
Going back further, the 1620 Mayflower Compact (http://www.ncmayflower.org/mayflowercompact.htm), made by the Pilgrims just before their landing, begins, "In the name of God, amen" and describes the purpose of their voyage as "for the glory of God and advancements of the Christian faith."
Another foundational legal document, the 1689 English Bill of Rights (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp), was based on the political thinking of John Locke and may have been part of the inspiration for our own Bill of Rights. This document calls the U.K. "this Protestant kingdom," states that "it hath pleased Almighty God to make [King William III] the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery" and declares that no Catholic will ever be allowed to hold the throne of the U.K.
And lastly, there's the document at the root of the Western legal system, the Magna Carta (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.asp). Like the others, it's woven throughout with religious language: its preamble begins "Know that before God..." and states that it was created "to the honor of God" and "the exaltation of the holy church."
In the light of these documents, it's easy to see just how unique, unusual, even unprecedented the Constitution is. The United States of America was the first modern republic that was created on the foundation of reason, without seeking blessings from a god, without imploring divine assistance or invoking divine favor. And, as I said, this fact was not overlooked when the Constitution was being debated. Very much to the contrary, the religious right of the founding generation angrily attacked it (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/thewall.html#ratification), warning that ratifying this godless document as-is would spell doom for the nation.
For instance, at the Constitutional Convention, the delegate William Williams proposed that the Constitution's preamble be modified to read: "We the people of the United States in a firm belief of the being and perfection of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the World, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws... do ordain, etc". A failed Virginia initiative attempted to change the wording of Article VI to say that "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil". The Maryland delegate Luther Martin observed "there were some members so unfashionable as to think that... it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."
However, the Constitution's defenders held firm, and all the attempts to Christianize it failed. And the religious right of the day bitterly lamented that failure. One anonymous anti-federalist wrote in a Boston newspaper that America was inviting the curse of 1 Samuel 15:23 - "Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee." In 1789, a group of Presbyterian elders wrote to George Washington to complain that the Constitution contained no reference to "the only true God and Jesus Christ, who he hath sent." In 1811, Rev. Samuel Austin claimed that the Constitution's "one capital defect" was that it was "entirely disconnected from Christianity." In 1812, Rev. Timothy Dwight, grandson of the infamous preacher Jonathan Edwards, lamented that America had "offended Providence" by forming a Constitution "without any acknowledgement of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us, as a people, of His government, or even of His existence."
What the religious right failed to achieve at the Constitutional Convention, they kept trying to do in the following decades. The National Reform Association, founded in 1863 by a group of clergy, proposed a constitutional amendment which would have changed the preamble to read, "We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, they repeatedly brought this proposal before presidents and congresses, getting turned down each time. As recently as 1954, the National Association of Evangelicals was still trying to amend the Constitution with language such as, "This nation divinely recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of Nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God."
Only within the last 50 or 60 years, now that they've finally accepted they have no realistic hope of changing it, has the religious right flip-flopped and started claiming that the Constitution meant to establish a Christian nation all along. This staggeringly dishonest, wholesale rewriting of history has become their stock in trade, to the point of having full-time propagandists (http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/barton-s-bunk-religious-right-historian-hits-the-big-time-tea-party-america) who obscure historical fact and promote the Christian-nation myth. These falsehoods filter into the political mainstream, until we have absurdities like Rick Perry claiming that the United States, a secular and democratic republic, was based on the legal code of an ancient theocratic monarchy. We, as liberals and progressives, should know better than to accept this falsehood. We have every reason to speak out and uphold America's proud history as a secular republic founded on reason and governed by the democratic will.

[wintertriangles]

Why do these people keep incorrectly claiming this country is based in Christianity? It clearly shows they have no clue about the founding fathers.

[will.15]

WASHINGTON -After months of getting a pass on the subject from his rivals, Mitt Romney was challenged in the Republican presidential debate Saturday night on his frequent claims that he created great numbers of jobs in the private sector. Newt Gingrich, for one, said Romney's record as a venture capitalist was one of flipping companies, taking out all the money and "leaving behind the workers."

Who's right?

The bottom line remains unknown about how many jobs were gained or lost from Romney's work at the Bain Capital private equity company. But this much is clear: His accounting behind the assertion that he created more than 100,000 jobs at companies he helped start up or turn around has been flawed.

A look at some of the claims in the latest GOP debate and how they compare with the facts:

ROMNEY: "But in the business I had, we invested in over 100 different businesses and net ... net, taking out the ones where we lost jobs and those that we added, those businesses have now added over 100,000 jobs.."

GINGRICH: "I'm not nearly as enamored of a Wall Street model where you can flip companies, you can go in and have leveraged buyouts, you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers."

THE FACTS: Romney has never substantiated his frequent claim that he was a creator of more than 100,000 jobs while leading the Bain Capital private equity company. His campaign merely cites success stories without laying out the other side of the ledger — jobs lost at Bain-acquired or Bain-supported firms that closed, trimmed their workforce or shifted employment overseas.

Moreover, his campaign bases its claims on recent employment figures at three companies — Staples, Domino's and Sports Authority — even though Romney's involvement with them ceased years ago.

By that sort of charitable math, President Barack Obama could be credited with creating over 1 million jobs even though employment overall is down about 2 million since he came to office. But Romney accuses Obama of destroying jobs while using a different standard to judge his own performance — cherry-picked examples that leave everything else out.

By its nature, venture capitalism often results in lost jobs because profitability and efficiency are key to investors, not how many people are on the payroll. Bain Capital profited in cases where employment went both up and down.

Staples, now with close to 90,000 employees, and Sports Authority, with about 15,000, were startups supported by Romney. The direct work force at Domino's has grown by nearly 8,000 since Romney's intervention. But Romney got out of the game in 1999, which has not stopped his campaign from crediting him with jobs created at those companies since then.

Romney toned down the braggadocio in the latest debate, saying that of the Bain-supported companies that grew, "we're only a small part of that, by the way." But he insisted his claim of more than 100,000 jobs was a "net net" figure that takes into account job losses elsewhere, even though his campaign has defended the assertion only by reporting on the performance of Sports Authority, Domino's and Staples.

No one has been able to produce a full accounting of job gains and losses from the scores of companies Romney dealt with at Bain. But a Los Angeles Times review of Bain's 10 largest investments under Romney found that four of the big companies declared bankruptcy within a few years, costing thousands of jobs and often pension and severance benefits.—

Associated Press writer Nancy Benac contributed to this report.

[Yoda]

Uh. You're the one making it seem like I'm judging because he's famous, I would had a similar reaction to anyone else. I already clarified why it's more of a problem.
In the last post you said "I'm not at all criticizing them because they went through a trauma and handled it oddly." But you're doing exactly that, and now you seem to be admitting it. So what's the deal?

Again, you're adding things that aren't there. This is clearly not what I did.
Technically speaking, you didn't go after Santorum for his judgmentalism, correct. Though technically speaking, I didn't say you did, either. I said he's often criticized for that, and now people are doing it to him, too. That said, I felt it very likely that you do, in fact, find him judgmental, and your replies since seem to support that. Am I wrong in that assumption?

He makes it clear every time he talks about something controversial that he thinks his opinion is fact, and therefore I can safely imply he doesn't think he's making judgments. This isn't that hard.
Thinking something is a fact and recognizing it as a judgment (particularly in this context, where it's not just a synonym for opinion) are not mutually exclusive. And talking with any kind of authority at all (which politicians are pretty wont to do) could easily lead someone to conclude that they "think [their] opinion is fact."

There's plenty of reason to say that Rick Santorum judges people. But I really don't see much reason to say he somehow thinks he doesn't. He was one of our Senators for years, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone level that accusation at him before.

Also, you're claiming anyone with an alternate opinion towards this story lacks empathy when, as I already explained, it's not about empathy, it's about going too far. You're making this way too complicated.
I'm certainly making it more complicated, but that's because I think your initial question was too simple. It was this: "...how the **** people are defending Santorum's fetus story?" Seems to me we've answered that question. You say he went too far. Well, the experts asked about this seem to be, at most, mixed and only mildly ambivalent about it. And whether or not it's a little much strikes me as a much softer position than "how the **** are people defending it?," which implies that there's no way to do so.

I only cited the article because you asked me. Man you're off the mark today.
Well, I was pretty sick yesterday (and I'm still fairly so). But I thought I was in pretty good form. :) Which I don't always think, for what it's worth.

First of all, was a joke. Second of all, why would CNN admit their program is wholly influenced by the left? The article wouldn't hint that either. Weird thing to bring up.
It was a joke? Man, it went right over my head, then, with room to spare. If it wasn't a serious accusation, then okay. That means we can agree there are psychiatrists who legitimately don't find this troublesome. Great.

Re: CNN and influence. I'm totally lost. The link was to an ABC News article and I didn't notice anything about influence. What are you referring to?

[Yoda]

im ok with the tax rates that were in place under Reagan, and the healthcare currently provided to ever Republican politician that publically poo poo's it for all Americans.

hows that?
How's what? You're still not even close to being a conservative, for all the reasons I listed. I rather doubt the term describes you in Canada, but I know it doesn't even come close in America. You are not a conservative. I'm not sure how this point is arguable.

i quoted the wrong Yoda post.

Basically, i cant fathom how one can be considered a Conservative if they are A-ok with massive Tax cuts while at the same time running 2 wars on credit and giving 4 trillion dollars away to big banks.

thats a head scratcher.
Well, most conservatives hate the bank giveaways, so there's nothing to "fathom" there. As for going into debt to fight wars, it's pretty simple: they think the war was more important than the debt. It's reasonable to disagree with that determination, but there's nothing even remotely head-scratching about it.

At this point I can pretty much assume that any time you say something is "unfathomable" or "head-scratching" or a "mystery," it won't be anything of the sort. It's pretty hard to fathom things if you don't make a serious effort to understand them.

[Yoda]

And these days they only want to give tax cuts to the rich.
What the crap? Pretty much all of them want tax cuts across the board.

[Yoda]

The first part's not quite right.
The second part sure is. Would it be fair to say, then, that you generalized significantly about a party whose subsets and varying interests you aren't really familiar with?

Just to clear things up. All religions are cults. I'd think a quick look in most (if not all) dictionaries would confirm this. It's obvious that not all religious people or sects are fundementalist or extreme. After all, I live in England, where we have the Church Of England. You could call them a lot of things, but extreme isn't one of them. Well, not unless we're discussing the traditional ingredients of a Christmas Pudding or judging a baking contest anyway.
This is slicing pretty thin. You think they're all ridiculous, extreme cults, but you just think some are really extreme? Either way, the claim is pretty diluted when you cast such a wide net to begin with.

[will.15]

Man, tons of qualifiers in here that you completely left out before. According to that link, the existing districts run the show, they're held to different standards, they can't use existing private or parochial schools, and on and on and on. This is a very augmented example of charter schooling. Which is not to say it's a terrible idea, but my guess is it wouldn't fly in Los Angeles without all those qualifications.

Regardless, the rest of my reply still works. You said this was "common," and implied that it was so common as to somehow demonstrate that it represented "most" liberals. I see no evidence of that, and there sure isn't much reflected of the idea on the national level. If the idea can fly in some places (though augmented to make it more tolerable to liberals), hey, great. That doesn't contradict what I said, though. In general, conservatives are much more supportive of school choice than liberals. True or false?
Conservatives are more supportive of school choice via vouchers.

[Yoda]

Conservatives are more supportive of school choice via vouchers.
As opposed to what? School "choice" where you have to pay for both the school you want and the one you reject? Geez, okay, sure, I'd probably agree with that: conservatives are more supportive of school choice that isn't diluted to such a stunning degree.

Fair warning: next post goes in it's own thread. There are enough topics floating around this one.

[wintertriangles]

In the last post you said "I'm not at all criticizing them because they went through a trauma and handled it oddly." But you're doing exactly that, and now you seem to be admitting it. So what's the deal?I must have mis-typed because that makes no sense. I'll clarify to say I'm not attacking the trauma at all.

Technically speaking, you didn't go after Santorum for his judgmentalism, correct. Though technically speaking, I didn't say you did, either. I said he's often criticized for that, and now people are doing it to him, too. That said, I felt it very likely that you do, in fact, find him judgmental, and your replies since seem to support that. Am I wrong in that assumption?It was only brought up because you labelled my judgment as narrow-minded when I don't see how that is true for one and for two Santorum's judgments are rather narrow-minded. How can he not be judgmental? He talks down to contraception, gays, muslims, and apparently black people as well in his recent speech regarding welfare. I'm not sure why you're asking me about this specifically honestly, he speaks for himself.

Thinking something is a fact and recognizing it as a judgment (particularly in this context, where it's not just a synonym for opinion) are not mutually exclusive. And talking with any kind of authority at all (which politicians are pretty wont to do) could easily lead someone to conclude that they "think [their] opinion is fact." There's plenty of reason to say that Rick Santorum judges people. But I really don't see much reason to say he somehow thinks he doesn't. He was one of our Senators for years, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone level that accusation at him before.I only went to that level for the reason of his rhetoric. I've seen all the debates so far, I've seen a number of off-shoot speeches by some of them including Rick, and whenever he makes claims that are technically opinions he words them as if there is no possible way anyone could see things from an alternate perspective. To be fair, he recently stated he would not federally ban contraception, so I guess that's somehow a plus for him?

I'm certainly making it more complicated, but that's because I think your initial question was too simple. It was this: "...how the **** people are defending Santorum's fetus story?" Seems to me we've answered that question. You say he went too far. Well, the experts asked about this seem to be, at most, mixed and only mildly ambivalent about it. And whether or not it's a little much strikes me as a much softer position than "how the **** are people defending it?," which implies that there's no way to do so.That's fair. I had read a number of articles defending it and even then couldn't interpret the event at question as healthy. I asked the question, unfairly worded as it was, in hopes to talk to someone here about it instead of getting a link to another article that I wouldn't agree with. You're probably right that I wouldn't change my mind, but I don't see the wrong in discussing it either way. Most of my opinions aren't engraved.

Re: CNN and influence. I'm totally lost. The link was to an ABC News article and I didn't notice anything about influence. What are you referring to?I just found it incredibly odd you were surprised that the article supporting the whole thing would reveal any weakness on its own side. Also, get better, I just got over my first flu.

[Yoda]

I must have mis-typed because that makes no sense. I'll clarify to say I'm not attacking the trauma at all.
Thanks, that explains things.

It was only brought up because you labelled my judgment as narrow-minded when I don't see how that is true for one and for two Santorum's judgments are rather narrow-minded. How can he not be judgmental? He talks down to contraception, gays, muslims, and apparently black people as well in his recent speech regarding welfare. I'm not sure why you're asking me about this specifically honestly, he speaks for himself.
Well, yeah, he is judgmental. Worth noting that he denies the "black people" quote; says he was just stumbling over words; some who've heard cleaner audio believe him, some don't. Take that how you will. But yeah, he's pretty judgmental, and I felt pretty safe assuming that you thought so. Mainly, though, it was directed at his critics in general, and not you specifically.

I only went to that level for the reason of his rhetoric. I've seen all the debates so far, I've seen a number of off-shoot speeches by some of them including Rick, and whenever he makes claims that are technically opinions he words them as if there is no possible way anyone could see things from an alternate perspective. To be fair, he recently stated he would not federally ban contraception, so I guess that's somehow a plus for him?
Heh. Yeah, there were some tremendously silly questions about contraception at last night's debate. It was an exceptionally dumb five-minute stretch that led to Romney saying "contraception's working; leave it alone." All these issues with the economy and we spent 20 minutes on contraception and gay marriage. Terrible questions.

Anyway, Santorum's Catholic, so he doesn't believe in it, but I'm pretty sure (I haven't checked) he's not for making it illegal.

The rest we'll have to disagree on, I suppose. I don't think we can say that, because someone phrases their opinions that way, they think they're not judging anyone. That's a leap, I think, especially considering there's no inherent mutual exclusivity. I think lots of things are true, but still recognize that saying so constitutes a judgment. Again, pointing out that the word "judgment" has a connotation that "opinion" does not.

That's fair. I had read a number of articles defending it and even then couldn't interpret the event at question as healthy. I asked the question, unfairly worded as it was, in hopes to talk to someone here about it instead of getting a link to another article that I wouldn't agree with. You're probably right that I wouldn't change my mind, but I don't see the wrong in discussing it either way.
Fair enough, I've got no issue putting the original wording aside. In case you're curious, my first reaction to the news was to be shocked and a little perturbed, too. But my second reaction was to think about the level of trauma involved and err on the side of tolerance for such a uniquely tragic thing, to not only lose a child but to lose them just as you were readying yourself to meet them. Pretty rough stuff.

I just found it incredibly odd you were surprised that the article supporting the whole thing would reveal any weakness on its own side. Also, get better, I just got over my first flu.
I'm still lost, but it probably doesn't matter.

First flu, like, ever? Or just this year?

I'd almost prefer the flu (don't listen to me, I don't actually mean that) because at least then I'd be able to stay in bed and sleep. I've got that weird in-between thing where I'm too tired to get a ton done, but too relatively normal not to feel obligated to. It's pretty lame.

[will.15]

What the crap? Pretty much all of them want tax cuts across the board.

http://newsone.com/nation/ggaynor/orrin-hatch-poor-rich/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/michele-bachmann-happy-meal-tax_n_1085223.html

[Yoda]

Hence "pretty much all of them." As you may have noticed, Hatch and Bachmann have not captured the hearts and minds of the party; quite the contrary.

I'm starting to think almost all of your arguments consist of taking one or two examples and pretending they exemplify the entire issue or party. If Democrats proposed legislation that cut taxes evenly across the board, there is no question Republicans would support it. No question.

[DexterRiley]

Why do these people keep incorrectly claiming this country is based in Christianity? It clearly shows they have no clue about the founding fathers.

Chris, whats your stance on this?

[Yoda]

It depends entirely on what you mean by "based in." We're clearly not intended to be an explicitly Christian nation, or an explicitly anything nation. We should never, ever have a state Church or anything like it.

On the other hand, most of our founders were unabashedly Christian, and many talked openly about their faith and how it informed their beliefs on government, and one of our founding documents explicitly bases the idea of unalienable rights in the idea of a Creator. So part of our nation is clearly based in a very broad, undefined theism, and it was founded by people heavily influenced by Christianity.

So, if being "based in Christianity" means any sort of law that specifically favors Christianity over another religion, then no, we're not. If it just means it's laws are based in theism and its ethos heavily influenced by Christianity, then we are. Either way, people need to define their terms before duking it out.

[wintertriangles]

On the other hand, most of our founders were unabashedly Christian, and many talked openly about their faith and how it informed their beliefs on government, and one of our founding documents explicitly bases the idea of unalienable rights in the idea of a Creator. Incorrect, if we're talking about the main people and not the signers of the DoI. Most of them were deists, and actually could be argued that Franklin was an atheist or merely doubtful, which is drastically different regarding the influence of religion in their laws. And actually I recall one moment where someone tried to ban Catholics from holding a position in office. As far as unabashedly, I have no idea where you get that from. Jefferson trimmed out like 80% of his bible, it's available to buy.

So, if being "based in Christianity" means any sort of law that specifically favors Christianity over another religion, then no, we're not. If it just means it's laws are based in theism and its ethos heavily influenced by Christianity, then we are. Yes and no. It's hard to be heavily influenced by a theology that most of the fathers didn't affiliate with. There is a mention of a creator in the DoI but it's not referenced as one who intervenes which would infer a deist creator.

[will.15]

It doesn't matter what our founding fathers personally believed. But evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Rick Perry want to tie the United States directly to Christianity by calling it a Christian nation.

[Yoda]

Incorrect, if we're talking about the main people and not the signers of the DoI. Most of them were deists, and actually could be argued that Franklin was an atheist or merely doubtful, which is drastically different regarding the influence of religion in their laws. And actually I recall one moment where someone tried to ban Catholics from holding a position in office. As far as unabashedly, I have no idea where you get that from. Jefferson trimmed out like 80% of his bible, it's available to buy.
Well, in that context I was, in fact, referring to the Declaration of Independence. Anyway, I'm familiar with these claims, which is one of the reasons I phrased things the way I did: a deist is still a theist. I'm doubtful of the claim that "most of them" were deists. I've heard it before, and it always seem to come from the very low burden of proof of finding even one quote that suggests as much, or is at all skeptical of the utility of religion. For example, Washington is often counted among these alleged deists based on the strength of a quote from his preacher, even though his own words on the matter say otherwise.

Clearly, there was a mix there; precisely what mix depends on what kind of standard you want to apply to both their public and personal comments.

Yes and no. It's hard to be heavily influenced by a theology that most of the fathers didn't affiliate with. There is a mention of a creator in the DoI but it's not referenced as one who intervenes which would infer a deist creator.
Not referencing any specific intervention by God doesn't imply deism at all; at most, it's just neutral on the question. But it's not even that, because the document specifically says we are "endowed" with these rights. This implies God has a specific notion of human dignity that we must recognize and respect. We can't simultaneously say God is uninterested in human affairs and say that God's existence endows us with rights.

[DexterRiley]

It doesn't matter what our founding fathers personally believed. But evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Rick Perry want to tie the United States directly to Christianity by calling it a Christian nation.

Pat Robertson is a fruit loop. I doubt very highly Chris or any reasonable Christian takes this guy anyway serious.

[will.15]

Pat Robertson is a fruit loop. I doubt very highly Chris or any reasonable Christian takes this guy anyway serious.
Rick Perry is a fruit loop also, and dumber, and he thinks he is swell.

[DexterRiley]

I dont recall Perry saying words to teh effect that katrina was Gods wrath unleashed to punish the gays.

Perry is whatever he thinks the audience before him wants him to be.

[will.15]

Rick Perry is in political bed with people even crazier than Pat Roberts who have blamed 911 and tornadoes on gays, and he refuses to separate himself from them or denounce the comments.

[DexterRiley]

Will why dont you stick to direct comments and leave the muddyen of the waters, guilt by association nonsense to Rush limbaugh.

A crappy tactic is crappy regardless of which camp employs it.

[will.15]

Will why dont you stick to direct comments and leave the muddyen of the waters, guilt by association nonsense to Rush limbaugh.

A crappy tactic is crappy regardless of which camp employs it. No, it isn't and is an example of a double standard if Yoda positive repped you. He thinks Obama should be condemned for Reverend Wright when Obama separated him from his comments before making the ultimate break, but some of Perry's nutty ministers, a boatload of them, have made far worse comments, are directly involved in his campaign, and Perry has never made any attempt to disassociate from them in any way. He has also made plenty of homophobic comments on his own and done screwy things like publicly praying for rain, which showed if God exists he thankfully doesn't listen to a demagogue like Rick Perry.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/08/26/rick-perrys-homophobia-problem-is-more-serious-than-originally-thought/

[will.15]

"I like being able to fire people"

Mitt Romney

[Yoda]

No, it isn't and is an example of a double standard if Yoda positive repped you. He thinks Obama should be condemned for Reverend Wright when Obama separated him from his comments before making the ultimate break, but some of Perry's nutty ministers, a boatload of them, have made far worse comments, are directly involved in his campaign, and Perry has never made any attempt to disassociate from them in any way. He has also made plenty of homophobic comments on his own and done screwy things like publicly praying for rain, which showed if God exists he thankfully doesn't listen to a demagogue like Rick Perry.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/08/26/rick-perrys-homophobia-problem-is-more-serious-than-originally-thought/
Well, I didn't positive rep him for it, but it wouldn't be an instance of a double standard even if I had. We had this argument before (last reply here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=752628)), and my position is the same: you're drawing a false equivalence. The priest of the church you belong to occupies a far different and far more significant part of your life than someone you share a stage with at a political rally, particularly when that rally is not explicitly partisan. The two associations are not the same, no matter how many times you insist that they are.

[will.15]

Obama said, and there has been nothing to contradict him, that he never directly heard from Reverend Wright the controversial comments. Is that credible? Maybe and maybe not, but it has never been disproved. And he repudiated the comments and when Wright did it during the campaign, left his church. Perry's connection to the ministers, some heads of organizations labeled hate groups, are not limited to a political rally organized by Perry. He has long associations with these groups, You are right, there is no equivalency because Perry's situation is far worse. There is zero evidence Obama shared Wright's views like "God damn America," but Perry's own positions and comments like the incredibly homophobic "truth" ad puts him in the same camp as the hatemonger ministers.

[Yoda]

The idea that an even moderately aware person, let alone a politically ambitious man, could belong to this church and have no idea that Wright was saying these things is absurd. Not "maybe and maybe not." It is well beyond plausible credulity. At least, to anyone who doesn't constantly behave like that coyote Perry shot was actually their dog.

Obama did, indeed, repudiate the comments and "disown" him...when bad press forced him to, and just shortly after saying he couldn't. I award a politician zero character points for repudiating someone because political pressure forces them to. No virtue is demonstrated in this act because it's identical to the action a purely self-interested person would take. This is all in the post from way back in August.

[will.15]

You have to show evidence he wasn't aware of it. Was Obama present when Wright made these specific controversial comments? Nobody has shown any evidence he was. It may seem logical he was aware of some of Wright's view, not necessarily the specific comments, but even that is not going to get you anywhere in a court of law. If they were not things he frequently spoke about then Obama could have been unaware. And it very well might not have been something Wright commonly spoke about. All I ever saw was the same clip.

And you're wrong he repudiated him because of the type of political pressure you are implying was a flip flop. It wasn't. Are you even aware of the facts? He repudiated him specifically for new comments, not old old, ones as was the case with the earlier comments before leaving his church altogether. He repudiated the earlier comments after they were publicized and became an issue. This is what all politicians do. Except maybe Rick Perry.

Your double standard is just amazing because what Perry did is far worse. Apparently, you think it is admirable he ignores bad press to embrace the hatemongers.

"At least, to anyone who doesn't constantly behave like that coyote Perry shot was actually their dog."

I need a translator to deceipher this sentence.

[Yoda]

Evidence he was aware of it? He was the member of the church for years. He even admitted to being aware of other controversial statements, just not those specific ones. It'd be borderline ridiculous to pretend any random person wouldn't have known anything about this, and it's patently absurd to say that someone with any political sensitivity or ambition wouldn't have. That's just not plausible. If you don't see this, then your probability meter is broken and there's little point in continuing.

I dunno what the crap "that is not going to get you anywhere in a court of law" has to do with anything. We're not in a court of law, and it'd be ridiculous to require that level of proof before believing in things.

[will.15]

As for stories that really lack credibility...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/10/rick-perry-says-he-shot-a-coyote-while-jogging-but-where-are-witnesses.html

[will.15]

Evidence he was aware of it? He was the member of the church for years. He even admitted to being aware of other controversial statements, just not those specific ones. It'd be borderline ridiculous to pretend any random person wouldn't have known anything about this, and it's patently absurd to say that someone with any political sensitivity or ambition wouldn't have. That's just not plausible. If you don't see this, then your probability meter is broken and there's little point in continuing.

I dunno what the crap "that is not going to get you anywhere in a court of law" has to do with anything. We're not in a court of law, and it'd be ridiculous to require that level of proof before believing in things.The reality is he survived the controversy so your view that he was saying something that totally lacked credulity doesn't seem to be the consensus view.

[Yoda]

Or it's a reflection of the fact that he didn't deny knowing Wright had said controversial things at all (the opposite, in fact), but just denied being in attendance for those specific sermons. Or it means that people don't really give a crap about guilt-by-association. Or it means that it hurt him, but not nearly enough to counteract the things they liked about him (or disliked about McCain). Or a million other things that have nothing to do with how plausible his explanation was.