Tounge.
McCain isn't going to
get the real conservative vote and isn't going to be hurt much by it I don't think. He was also out of campaign
funds till the Vichy Dem Lieberman showed up. I really do not understand what Ron Paul is up to, seems to be saying
"hang in there, things will change" without offering up much hope to his supporters.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Have to agree with KK about
McCain, but Tongue's point is valid.
The dynamics on the Rep side still have some playing out to do. It'll
be interesting to see how the far right develops as they're forced to accept McCain.
Just for more tomfoolery,
how about McCain/Rice? Not such a stretch is it?
to be honest...
whoever is
pulling McCain's puppet strings will likely pick his VP for him. Rice has said over and over that she's not
interested in public office.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Originally Posted by koolking1
Now the above I agree with. I don't know how much of the
conservative vote McCain will get, but one thing is for sure. He will need a good percentage of them to have any
chance of being elected. Picking a democrat would finish him for sure. He has pissed of too many conservatives to
risk such a stupid move.
[quote=koolking1;207847]McCain
isn't going to get the real conservative vote and isn't going to be hurt much by it I don't think. [/qu
He
may not get the conservative vote, but he must get a large percentage of it to be elected.
Who says
they are going to accept him?
Many coservatives would rather see the country contiue down the shitter with a
left wing democrat than another "RHINO".
I find it interesting that many Republicans view HillaryWho says
they are going to accept him?
Many coservatives would rather see the country contiue down the shitter with a
left wing democrat than another "RHINO".
as far left wing while many Democrats call her "Republican lite". Guess it's all perspective. At least the gap
between the two sides isn't quite as bad as it used to be a couple years back, when the divisivenesss of the
political situation peaked.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 03-08-2008 at 07:07 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I'd frankly rather see them
further apart most of the time. If the two sides are busy fighting with each other they have less time to steal from
us and take away more of our freedoms.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Well, they may not totally accept him, but a *real*Who says
they are going to accept him?
Many coservatives would rather see the country contiue down the shitter with a
left wing democrat than another "RHINO".
conservative will not pull the lever for either of our current democrats. They'll stay home first, which is only
half as bad. Like I said before... I do think the dynamics will change. Reps may just have to take the bitter
medicine of McCain and wait for the next great conservative leader. If I'm wrong, it could be real trouble for
the GOP going forward.
Edit: the more I think about it though, the more your comments make sense. I'm just
fighting current reality with pure irrational disbelief.
I think you're right about it being perspective,
but not only in the Rep/Dem way. Many in the Dem. party are radicalized so far left that even Hillary can be seen
as moderate. Much the same as McCain being "Democrat lite".
Also, I think a lot of Dems view Hillary in the
light of her husband, who is far more centrist than Hillary.
I'd prefer a clearer choice as well. You won't see any of your
suggestions come to pass until our electorate gets of their apathetic asses, and start playing a
role.
Yes, Rice has said that, and I think
of all people she's one who actually means it.
Puppet strings, hmmm. I wonder about that. McCain is
pissing off the Rep. base while courting disaster in the general election. Who could be pulling that string? His
VP choice may tell.
Last edited by idesign; 03-09-2008 at 08:27 PM.
Lol. Was waiting for you to comment on that
one.
If I understand correctly, you are basically saying that Congress wasting their time and our money in
bickering, and accomplishing nothing whatsoever; is better than them accomplishing something which would undoubtedly
be bad.
You therefore win the DST Award for Political Cynicism to the Point of Nihilism (adding to your recent
A+ and Gold Star from another thread).
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Is it cynicism when direct
evidence seems to indicate that the basis is factual? You do not address the fact that they are taking away from us
more than they return.
Right now there are so many laws on the books that you cannot help but break them. They
are a mass of hodge podge contradictions that make little if any sense. And our fine government continues to make
more laws when we really need fewer. You know very well if it were in my power I would reduce the government by at
least 90%. Watch how much better off we all would be.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Just teasing. I'll leave it up to
you to define "cynical" however you want. It's just an unimportant word.
It's hard to argue the government has
been doing a lot of good, or that there aren't ridiculous amounts of laws, many of them silly, on the books.
Even if you pick one law in one area, say on a particular real estate issue, which I have done recently, the
various cross references, clauses, ambiguities and exceptions on that one issue can often be mind boggling.
You
might even have to toggle back and forth between multiple codes just to understand one sentence in one code. Laws
are often pasted together in piecemeal, haphazard ways, or even written by the interests they are intended to cover
or regulate. Though I'm no lawyer or lawmaker, I imagine most laws could be rewritten to all our benefit, with
entire portions of code simplified greatly.
In addition, congresspeople responsible for voting on those laws
often don't read the 1000 or so pages these codes contain. It is ridiculous. Indeed, when most congresspeople
didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate before initially voting on authorizing the war, for example,
how do you expect them to read "more trivial" legal documents?
I really wish all politicians would dedicate
themselves minimizing bureaucracy, red-tape, and inefficiency. They should award PhD's left and right to people who
figure out how to simplify laws. Whether one is Democrat, Republican, or neither should be irrelevant. Whether it's
a "conservative,' or "libertarian," or some other kind of idea, matters little. It's common sense.
It's hard
to see all this accomplished in our current political system, though we might pull ourselves toward that via our
suspenders. You'd think the idea behind this kind of reform would have popular appeal over time. Unfortnately
lawmakers love to write laws, just like surgeons like to cut on us, too often unnecessarily. (I'm a mental health
counselor and often think everybody is crazy.)
But anyway, does that mean that people working together through
public means -- "government" broadly speaking, if you will -- can accomplish nothing constructive? To the extent I
believed we couldn't, I would consider myself "cynical" about govenment, at least. I would definitely describe
myself as "skeptical" about all government programs, statutes, and members; for many of the same reasons you have
stated. I wouldn't believe I can afford to be hopeless about it; since pragmatically we will be forced to
participate in, or deal with, governments of some kind for the forseeable future. But again, I'm not going to argue
your points when I agree with so many aspects of that kind of issue.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 03-11-2008 at 05:06 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Sorry, Doc. I was
teasing/baiting you with that first paragraph. My obscure humor can sometimes cause that kind of misunderstanding.
I can't disagree with anything you said there.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
You would get my vote
in a heartbeat. Isn't it funny though that no politician says anything close to what you're saying. You actually
propose real CHANGE.
Looks like its messing with a lot of heads lately.
I completely missed this point at the
time, but Hillary/Bill floated the VP Obama scenario with Obama in the lead!
Some say it was the height of
arrogance in typical Clinton fashion. Others say a brilliant move which belittled Obama, ie "he's a nice boy, lets
see if he wants to play outfield". I think its probably a bit of both.
Of course Obama came out strutting like a
preacher shaming the devil.
The idea of Bill Clinton anywhere near the WH is creepy. But maybe he and Spitzer
can tag-team in the Lincoln bedroom.
On the Rep side, a lot of people are talking about the "M&M" ticket. Its
interesting to note though that its Lieberman who's traveling to the ME with McCain. That could be for other
reasons though.
Thanks Tounge. My greatest
fear, were I idiot enough to even consider running for office, is that within months I'd get impeached and/or
lynched for the skyrocketing unemployment as I fired government time wasters. Do you realize that if you laid off
half the government employees you could clear the national debt but would triple unemployment?
If any politician
wanted real change and real government reduction he would never get into office. Every useless lump on the
government payroll would vote against him out of fear for their jobs. You can't have them out doing real work, now
can you?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
This stuff is great guys,
cheers all around.
Definitely hard to see Doc, and though Bel was teasing, I
liked his remark about cynicism v. observation of reality. When I talk about politics with my g/f she says that
I'm "negative". Hrrmph! I'm just observing what I see. Definitions indeed.
One thought about the
popular appeal of reform. I do think there is a groundswell of opinion in that direction.
The fact that we're all
here talking about it, from different ideological perspectives, is evidence. I can only assume that its happening
in many places and circumstances.
My fear (skepticism, cynicism) is that the bureaucratic inertia is too great.
My optimism is that I'm just silly enough to be an optimist.
Ok, back to work and "produce" something!
Add to that the fact that the preponderance of gov't employees are Democrat, and have a
vested interest in not only voting their jobs into perpetuity, but in continuing their programs with increased
budgets. Not that today's Republicans are all that much better.
That's what makes me fear the bureaucracy as
much as any Senator or President. The leaders are not leading, they're following an entrenched and failed ideal
which has become a runaway train.
Note that any cut in *future budget increases* is always reported by the media
as "slashing budgets".
They've learned to market themselves well enough to make people think that any curb in
spending will "kill children and the elderly" or some such nonsense.
Rant off.
Last edited by idesign; 03-11-2008 at 05:37 PM. Reason: mea culpa, whenever possible
Actually, and even though allThis
stuff is great guys, cheers all around.
Definitely hard to see Doc, and though Bel was teasing, I liked
his remark about cynicism v. observation of reality. When I talk about politics with my g/f she says that I'm
"negative". Hrrmph! I'm just observing what I see. Definitions indeed.
of us are just teasing, there is nothing about the word "cynical" in the formal definitions that implies one
is necessarily wrong in one's "negativity" about the the human intentions, sentiments, or propspects one has
in one's cynical mind. I could be cynical about some politician and be right in the negative beliefs behind my
cynicism.
The issues of factuality and cynicism are independent. "Cynicism" is not like the word "paranoia",
where the notion everyone is out to get you is by definition irrational, such that you couldn't use the word
if everyone really was after someone.
Unfortunately, you being right does not in itself absolve
you from your girlfriend's criticism.Having said that, and in light of your hopeful comments, that doesn't
mean your girlfriend would necessarily be right to call you cynical, either...
For that matter, being
"right", in my experience, is of little use in the real world anyway, especially in relationships with certain
other genders. It's often easiest, or even more prudent, to just make yourself "wrong" and be done with it. How
cynical of me.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I'm trying to get interested about the republican race. It is mildly interesting that Romney is
openly campaigning to be VP after having said, essentially, that no way in hell would he ever be McCain's VP, back
in January.
But for sheer drama, you can't beat the human drama machine that is Hillary. Hollywood ought to hire
her. Wait -- they already have.
How fun that one of her campaign finance officers, Geraldine Ferraro, comes
out like nineteen times and says Obama is only where he is because he is black. (I'm fantasizing about Obama coming
out with "Hillary's only where she is because she's a cold, calculating B!+ch". That would be hilarious.) How fun
that she patronizes frontrunner Obama and plays head games with the public by offering him the VP. I pretty much
expect her to run as an independent if she loses to Obama, just to hand the election to an aging one termer, so she
can run again in four years. I think hell would freeze over before she'd get the VP nod.
Hillary will say or do
anything to win, it seems. That makes her an exciting and fun competitor. Then again, I'm a sports fan.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Unfortunately, you being right does not in itself absolve you from your girlfriend's criticism.
said that, and in light of your hopeful comments, that doesn't mean your girlfriend would necessarily be right to
call you cynical, either...
I told her about our discussion over breakfast. She
commented very negatively about rearranging certain anatomical features in a way I've not heard before.
I'd lay low for a couple of days.
j/k of course, she's a very patient woman, even when I think I'm
right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34sMM...elated&search=
Last edited by idesign; 03-13-2008 at 07:11 PM. Reason: adding fun
Every time I see her on TV I wonder which Hillary we'll see, or maybe (pant!) a newBut
for sheer drama, you can't beat the human drama machine that is Hillary. Hollywood ought to hire her. Wait -- they
already have.
one! There are so many already. Yer right, kind of a cross between a sitcom, a soap opera and a playoff game.
I'm still trying to get my
mind around this one. I wouldn't put it past her, for the motive you just named, but wow, is she really that
narcissistic? Don't anwser that.
If she did such a thing, the Dem party would spontaneously combust. Could
be fun.
Well, hold onto your season tickets, its about to get
more interesting.
Apparently Obama is coming out tomorrow with an "explanation" of his association with the Rev.
Wright. Now, this may seem uninteresting on its face, but this is the biggest "crisis" so far in his candidacy, and
he really does need to say something meaningful.
His greater challenge may be in not giving Hillary ammunition.
We'll see. My dad told me
that Obama's minister was once supportive of Louis Farrakhan, and that he'd never in a million years vote for him
because of that. I'm not sure who he supports. Interestingly, my parents' parish priest was a chronic
pedophile.
I get amused talking to people about why they vote for particular people. You learn a lot about
humanity that way.
It's usually because they have poured through congressional records to see how they voted,
and have examined their positions on the issues, as compared to the other candidates.
Just kidding!
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
none
I kinda like the Rev Wright
myself. It's too bad Obama has to distance himself from him but he's smart to do so and did it today rather well.
There's a move afoot within Republican conservative circles to vote for Obama, they don't like him that much but
he's far better in their minds than McCain or Clinton. Ron Paul's still in there and he may yet prevail the way
the economy is going. They are destroying the dollar to save the banks and Wall Street, small time currency traders
in Amsterdam will no longer accept your tourist dollars for exchange as the value drops too quickly these days for
them. What are we going to do if oil producing countries stop taking the dollar, have you got some Euros to pay for
your gas? I think that's the next dilemna coming, no gas at the station.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
So why do you think so
many conservatives dislike McCain so much, to the point of becoming turncoats?
It's not that strange, in that
most "progressives" -- people on the "left" who have more of an overarching political philosophy instead of just
seeing themselves as "Democrats" who vote for the Democrat -- would not have picked either Hillary or Barack as
their first choice. A lot of people on the left really detest Hillary, even though she definitely has her supporters
in certain demographics
It almost seems like, despite, say, Barack's rock star popularity in some circles, the
bigger majority of people with political interests aren't really happy with any of the candidates.
But I
really don't understand that level of rejection by the Right, since McCain seems to have voted with Bush the vast
majority of the time, even though he has a couple of very specific things he varies on. He still is going to come
down to the right of Obama on most eveything, is he not? In following his actual voting record over recent years, I
was of the opinion that a lot of Republicans were, when push comes to shove, much more moderate than McCain. I
don't get his reputation.
I don't quite get the angle these "consevative circles" are taking. I know Bush
really wasn't conservative in the traditional, old-school sense, or else he wouldn't have run up the defecit by so
many trillions. But Republicans were quite tenacious in their loyality to him for the longest time, until popular
opinion and continued Bush Administration screw ups forced their hands.
Frankly, I don't really understand what
conservatism means in 2008. That could be the problem. Neo-cons, or the Religious Right, have been much easier to
understand. But I don't really get it. Is there even such a thing as main stream conservatism any more? I'm not
even sure Republicans are more "conservative" than Democrats any more, in terms of traditional conservatism,
depending on the person. I don't know that being Democrat versus Republican is going to determine spending and
defecits any more; or, say, trade policy. It's hard to make sense of it, other than to throw your hands up.
For
a while I got so disgusted with politics I ceased to follow it in critical detail like I used to. So there's a lot
I feel I just don't know any more.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 03-18-2008 at 04:50 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
A note on Obama's
speech...
So, Obama trots out and proceeds to blame past bigotry for anger in the black community and Wright's
idiotic statements, effectively explaining it away and tossing a bone to the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.
This is "change"?
So long, Barack Obama....
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweis...ntly-with.html
you should read the whole
thing but here's part of the above article:
"Today's Washington Post reports on a debate yesterday arranged
by United Jewish Committees in D.C. among Jewish advocates for Hillary, Obama, and McCain. The debate became a rout,
the Post columnist averred, in which the advocates for Hillary and McCain "used their time to raise doubts about
Obama's fealty to Israel."
Fealty to Israel? They portrayed Obama as a dangerous leftwinger, and when the
Illinois senator's surrogate defended Obama's statement that the U.S. does not have to cleave to Likud policies,
Ann Lewis, Hillary's advocate, responded:
"The role of the president of the United States is to support the
decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political
parties.""
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
An interesting view from "the other
side":
Rest of storyOakton, Va. - Few dare to say it, but it's time we acknowledged a sad truth about American
politics: liberalism is dead – and it has been for 40 years.
Of course, America's
conservative talk-show hosts can't admit this without facing the embarrassing fact that they have been beating a
dead horse all this time. One can imagine their fervent prayer: "Dear God, we don't have Soviet Communists anymore.
Please keep a few liberals for us to kick around."
HERE!
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
Republicans = Democrats
Making a
Recession Great
Posted March 19th, 2008 by manystrom
by Ron Paul | March 16, 2008
House Democrats
recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford
them. By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the
highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10% to 15% as well. Estates would again be taxed at 55%.
The child tax credit would drop from $1000 to $500. Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by
increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. It's not just that the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich.
They want to raise taxes on everybody.
The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected
officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere. The wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $1 trillion. The Democrats' budget gives the President all the
funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war. While
Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much
in the long run.
Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well. Over half of our budget goes to mandatory
entitlements. The total cost of government now eats up over half of our national income, as calculated by Americans
for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate. Our current financial situation is completely
untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks