PDA

View Full Version : Sorry, Dav


Terez
10-06-2011, 03:51 AM
Sarah Palin is not running for president (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/05/141094625/palin-says-she-will-not-run-for-president-in-2012-election?sc=fb&cc=fp). Shame, that. It's still going to be a circus.

GonzoTheGreat
10-06-2011, 03:55 AM
Sarah Palin is not running for president (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/05/141094625/palin-says-she-will-not-run-for-president-in-2012-election?sc=fb&cc=fp). Shame, that. It's still going to be a circus.Bother. I'd just intended to start a thread with the title "Palin running", which would then followed in the main text with a link titled "... away".

Terez
10-06-2011, 04:13 AM
Well, that's what you get for being slow, and inconsiderate of Dav's feelings to boot.

I am starting to feel better about this. The wackos have little support; I hope Romney stays ahead of Rick Perry. He'd be much more tolerable in a race against Obama; Rick Perry would have me nauseous half the time worrying he'd win.

Sei'taer
10-06-2011, 07:32 AM
Well, that's what you get for being slow, and inconsiderate of Dav's feelings to boot.

I am starting to feel better about this. The wackos have little support; I hope Romney stays ahead of Rick Perry. He'd be much more tolerable in a race against Obama; Rick Perry would have me nauseous half the time worrying he'd win.

Herman Caine asked her to be his VP.

You do know Caine is ahead of Perry and Perry is falling fast to him and Romney. I don't figure he'll be around much longer.

Crispin's Crispian
10-06-2011, 10:17 AM
Well, that's what you get for being slow, and inconsiderate of Dav's feelings to boot.

I am starting to feel better about this. The wackos have little support; I hope Romney stays ahead of Rick Perry. He'd be much more tolerable in a race against Obama; Rick Perry would have me nauseous half the time worrying he'd win.

Still, there's this:

Majority Expects Obama to Lose Re-Election (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/majority-expects-obama-to-lose-re-election/).

If this is actually representative, who is going to win? Romney is the only non-wacko it seems.

Juan
10-06-2011, 11:18 AM
I like how you all consider these republicans "wackos."

Going with your logic, Obama's a wacko too. Hope he doesn't win then.

Crispin's Crispian
10-06-2011, 11:19 AM
I like how you all consider these republicans "wackos."

Going with your logic, Obama's a wacko too. Hope he doesn't win then.

Might want to read stuff again, or just avoid generalizing. We're not all out to persecute you.

Yellowbeard
10-06-2011, 11:34 AM
I listen to Herman Cain on the radio a fair amount on the radio here in Atlanta, and I think he's got a lot of sense in him, and he is definitely not a whacko.

He'd be infinitely better than Obama.

Sukoto
10-06-2011, 02:33 PM
I listen to Herman Cain on the radio a fair amount on the radio here in Atlanta, and I think he's got a lot of sense in him, and he is definitely not a whacko.

He'd be infinitely better than Obama.
Actually, he is slightly wacko. You probably haven't heard him speak about Islam yet. He is very stubbornly ignorant in that area.

fdsaf3
10-06-2011, 03:35 PM
I like how you all consider these republicans "wackos."

Going with your logic, Obama's a wacko too. Hope he doesn't win then.

It is true approximately 100% of the time that if someone on the internet says "going by your logic" (or some equivalent thereof), they are going to say something which doesn't fit at all with what you were saying before.

Just saying.

The Unreasoner
10-06-2011, 04:12 PM
Did anyone honestly think she would run? She knows she can't win. And when she made her decision (and kept it a secret), the wording of the statement all but screamed it.

Terez
10-06-2011, 04:54 PM
Herman Caine asked her to be his VP.

You do know Caine is ahead of Perry and Perry is falling fast to him and Romney. I don't figure he'll be around much longer.
Cain, not Caine. Which is really neat, because they can just recycle bumper stickers.

(Now I'm sad because apparently you can't even copy/paste strikethrough here.)

Zombie Sammael
10-06-2011, 06:14 PM
Cain, not Caine. Which is really neat, because they can just recycle bumper stickers.

(Now I'm sad because apparently you can't even copy/paste strikethrough here.)

I once tried highlighting in black as an almost-alternative. It was meh.

Basel Gill
10-06-2011, 07:17 PM
Just fine by me. Any Republican who puts the social/morality agenda out there is just shooting themselves in the foot.

Bachmann just stated on Bret Baier this evening that she would reinstate "don't ask don't tell" because the military is not the place for social experiments. While on the surface may seem acceptable to some, kinda reminds me of integration of the military. Some said that was social experimentation too.

They need to drop the gay hating, drop the evangelical angle, etc. In that regard, I hate to say that Romney is likely getting my vote. He's not fiscally conservative enough, but whatever.

Davian93
10-06-2011, 07:57 PM
Just fine by me. Any Republican who puts the social/morality agenda out there is just shooting themselves in the foot.

Bachmann just stated on Bret Baier this evening that she would reinstate "don't ask don't tell" because the military is not the place for social experiments. While on the surface may seem acceptable to some, kinda reminds me of integration of the military. Some said that was social experimentation too.

They need to drop the gay hating, drop the evangelical angle, etc. In that regard, I hate to say that Romney is likely getting my vote. He's not fiscally conservative enough, but whatever.

So you want them to stop being Republicans?

Romney is an unmitigated ass...I lived in Mass when he was governor, he just says what he thinks you want to hear...he's terrible.

tworiverswoman
10-06-2011, 08:00 PM
So you want them to stop being Republicans?

Romney is an unmitigated ass...I lived in Mass when he was governor, he just says what he thinks you want to hear...he's terrible.Oh, so he's a politician, then?

:p:p

Davian93
10-06-2011, 08:05 PM
Oh, so he's a politician, then?

:p:p

Worse than most. Some politicians actually do believe in some of what they spout...he believes in whatever makes him get more power. He's a completely empty suit.

Res_Ipsa
10-06-2011, 08:45 PM
Are Dems the only ones allowed to institute social policies?

I would immediately do away with public funding of abortions. Not talking about rape kits here. It is a purely social invention of the left to pay for abortions. You scream the GOP is pushing their agenda on you but it seems perfectly ok to push your agenda on those of us who believe abortion is wrong.

I would get rid of social experiments such as affirmative action. I would get rid of the Department of Education, let the states deal with it. I would gut lobbying, not sure how yet beyond basic tax reform. I would gut most of the overseas military bases. I would gut the War Powers Resolution that allows Presidents to wage mini wars. I would gut the IRS. I would gut social security by guaranteeing all who paid in would receive their benefits but stop enrollment of new people.

I would gut a lot of things, but least among my goals would be the big M morality issues. But social issues are kind of everywhere.


As for a POTUS candidate, I like Cain alot. But let's not kid ourselves, most anyone would be better than the joke that is Obama. Cain is probably the best chance the GOP has to knock out Obama now that Christie is doa and Rubio does not even want the VP nom.

Davian93
10-06-2011, 09:11 PM
The 1950s weren't a golden age...why would you want to go back to them?

The only good thing they had was their tax rates.

Davian93
10-06-2011, 09:14 PM
I would gut the War Powers Resolution that allows Presidents to wage mini wars.

The War Powers Resolution an attempt, albeit a weak and likely unconstitutional attempt, to PREVENT Presidents from doing that, not help them.

I would gut lobbying

How? Per SCOTUS, corporations are people too...really rich people that deserve to have a voice in how our country is run. Their freedom of speech is their money. Why do you hate America?

Kimon
10-06-2011, 09:19 PM
I would get rid of the Department of Education, let the states deal with it.


The Department of Education is far from a major budget expenditure. Its entire operating budget is 71 Billion, and the lion's share of that is a consequence of Republican policies - No Child Left Behind. Its budget was 14 Billion per annum prior to 2002. And even with NCLB, education is still mostly state and locally controlled, albeit less so than it had been prior to the implementation of NCLB.

I would gut most of the overseas military bases. I would gut the War Powers Resolution that allows Presidents to wage mini wars. I would gut the IRS. I would gut social security by guaranteeing all who paid in would receive their benefits but stop enrollment of new people.

Agree with you on the overseas bases and the War Powers Resolution, but Social Security serves an invaluable purpose as a safety net against widespread poverty amongst the elderly. Eliminating it would destablilize the social welfare of the nation, which would create far larger problems than simply making occasional tweaks to ensure continued viability to the program.

Davian93
10-06-2011, 09:22 PM
The War Powers Resolution has never been enacted...and thus has never been challenged in court (which it inevitably would be). Why the anger over it?

It has NOTHING to do with any of the conflicts started since it was passed following Vietnam.

Kimon
10-06-2011, 09:27 PM
The War Powers Resolution has never been enacted...and thus has never been challenged in court (which it inevitably would be). Why the anger over it?

It has NOTHING to do with any of the conflicts started since it was passed following Vietnam.

Libya?

Davian93
10-06-2011, 09:31 PM
Libya?

Oh, Congress actually invoked it? Because I remember them just whining and not actually doing anything. Just like every other time. The House passed a resolution but not the Senate. Nothing changed.

If Congress really wants to restrict these conflicts (the supposed point of the Resolution in the first place), they can very easily NOT FUND the conflict as per their Constitutional check on Executive power. Instead, they continually pu$$y out on it (both sides, not just the GOP) so until they grow a pair and use their constitutional power, they should just STFU.

fdsaf3
10-06-2011, 10:07 PM
Can someone enlighten me on what the rules are for U.S. participation in U.N. interventions like Libya? Does the President need to go to Congress for approval?

Davian93
10-06-2011, 10:17 PM
Can someone enlighten me on what the rules are for U.S. participation in U.N. interventions like Libya? Does the President need to go to Congress for approval?

Theoretically, per the War Powers Resolution, the President needs Congressional approval for any military action (UN Peacekeeping would fall under that as would a NATO intervention like Libya) after 60 days. However, this Resolution, which was passed after Vietnam, is likely unconstitutional as the Constitution provides that hte President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Under that guise, he has pretty much complete and unfettered power to use the military as he sees fit. Congress has one check on this power and its a big one...they can simply refuse to fund it. All funding and revenue comes from Congress (much like Parliament having the purse strings in the UK). However, Congress has NEVER refused to fund US soldiers/airmen/marines in a combat zone and they never will as its political suicide to "Not support the troops".

Basically, the President can do whatever he feels like and Congress can simply fund it or not. To Declare war (something we haven't done since WWII) requires an act of Congress but a military action does not. Every single president has used US troops in such a fashion all the way back to Washington. John Adams fought a quasi naval war with the French for years. Jefferson invaded North Africa all on his own. Madison fought undeclared wars against both the UK and France before the War of 1812. A bunch of others authorized force in the Indian Wars...the 20th century saw dozens of interventions in Banana Republics that continued all the way through the century.

So basically, its a bit ridiculous to criticize a President for such an act when it has ALWAYS been done and it is within his Constitutional powers to do so. If Congress has an issue, they can cut off funding. The whining is just political theater to appease their base.


Edit: If you are curious on this issue, I highly recommend the following book: The Savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot. Its a great study on this very topic that is heavily oriented towards the Marine Corps (basically because they were the sole expeditionary/projectable force we had).

Terez
10-06-2011, 11:15 PM
John Adams fought a quasi naval war with the French for years. Jefferson invaded North Africa all on his own. Madison fought undeclared wars against both the UK and France before the War of 1812.
I have the pleasure of currently reading about all these things in RJ's Fallon books. (NOT recommended for historical enlightenment. The most important thing I've learned is that RJ did NOT like Alexander Hamilton.)

Res_Ipsa
10-07-2011, 06:39 AM
I have the pleasure of currently reading about all these things in RJ's Fallon books. (NOT recommended for historical enlightenment. The most important thing I've learned is that RJ did NOT like Alexander Hamilton.)

Fallon a big fan of Burr then?

And how you guy lobbying is through tax reform. Basically what the federal government does is collect all the money and then through Congress dole it out to special interests for such asinine projects as only a government body can think of and then some necessary projects. There is a problem here in that you have to have the federal government taking first dibs. The states would hardly want to kick up to daddy, but at the same time the current monetary policy is only increasing the problems. Interests are supposed to be state-wide in my view. You won't get rid of them no matter what you do but you can lessen their effect and you can force them to be an interest in the state in where the money is generated instead of the broad donor system we have now. That has several problems as well. Ohh well.

GonzoTheGreat
10-07-2011, 06:45 AM
Basically what the federal government does is collect all the money and then through Congress dole it out to special interests for such asinine projects as only a government body can think of and then some necessary projects.Congratulations. That's a greater exaggeration than any I've managed today.

Terez
10-07-2011, 08:02 AM
Fallon a big fan of Burr then?
Yes. He even managed to slip his main character in at the duel.

The Unreasoner
10-08-2011, 01:46 PM
Well since Hamilton is to the first Democrats as the Seanchan are to Elayne, maybe we don't need to have One Raven Empire to Rule the World Forever.

Basel Gill
10-09-2011, 10:32 AM
Dav, stopping the moral majority angle would be perfectly in line with my definition of conservatism. Less government, means LESS, regardless of whether I agree with you or not.