meazza Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) Holy ****! Aren't left leaning folks embarrassed over Debbie wasserman Schultz? Yesterday she said she didn't know the party affiliation of the producers of obamas super PAC . Then today ( google wolf blitzer and Debbie). It's on rcp website. Wolf blitzer tried to have her admit that people over 55 wouldn't get affected. She did not want to admit it, he repeatedly (must have been five times he pressed her) tried to get her to admit it, she flat out lied. She lied yesterday and she lied today and she is the dnc head. It's outright embarrassment and she represents the democratic party. She's a bold faced liar and that's not hyperbole, that's fact, and she represents the democratic party. The democrats right now look like a bunch of small people right now. Small, liars, shallow, vitriolic and no substantive . http://www.realclear...ts_seniors.html Yes she's nuts. Edited August 14, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 It is a waste of time to engage anyone who truly believes Obama is a socialist/Marxist. The same would go to debate anyone who says Bush was a fascist. That's fine. I just take him at his word. Today he let another socialistic/Marxist phrase slip out to go along with his seeking out Marxist professors, spreading the wealth around, plans to lead the healthcare toward single payer, belief that at some point you've made enough money, belief that business is the enemy, but you go ahead if it lets you feel superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Rob, while he may or may not be a socialist philisophically, he's been nothing but neo-mercantilist in practice. I'm not claiming he's successfully implemented his ideal system. I'm stating that ideologically he's a socialist. I think at this point the argument that he's not is the more extreme view. I've made a strong case that is thus far unrefuted. Just look at his record. Government is his answer to EVERYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I'm not claiming he's successfully implemented his ideal system. I'm stating that ideologically he's a socialist. I think at this point the argument that he's not is the more extreme view. I've made a strong case that is thus far unrefuted. Just look at his record. Government is his answer to EVERYTHING. Not quite. The merger of government force and massive corporate interests are his answer to everything. A few examples: the auto-bailouts preserved preserved large and entrenched corporate interests, the ACA does nothing but further enrich big insurance and big pharma, welfare expansion's chief purpose is as a subsidy for big agriculture, etc. Government hasn't nationalized any businesses or industries, they've simply helped those industries cartelize themselves against the public. That's what neo-mercantilism is. The package he sells to his base is socialist, but that's how the politics of division works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 The democrats right now look like a bunch of small people right now. Small, liars, shallow, vitriolic and no substantive . And I am convinced Romney knew this would happen when picking Ryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 What I said was:"Those simpletons who vote on social positions weren't going to vote for Romney as it is"and then I also said:"Actually, I believe he will attract women to the campaign, he's young, smart and good looking, and believe it or not, there is a segment of the population of women voters where these things matter."There is no contradiction in there whatsoever. By saying "Believe it or not, there is a segment of the population of women voters where these things matter" I'm implying that this is also a shallow reason to vote for someone.I'm surprised you didn't catch that, it really wasn't that encrypted. He might even get some of the "get more rooster in me azz" crowd. I'm just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) He might even get some of the "get more rooster in me azz" crowd. I'm just sayin'. I don't get what you're sayin Edited August 14, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I don't get what you're sayin I think he just asked you out on a date and told you to bring condoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I don't get what you're sayin It goes back aways to a thread I remember where JA and LA were havin' a tussle about sweater-vest Santorum and the gay vote. Just ruminating on Ryan's "buff" 6-8% body fat article over the weekend. There's a fire in the log cabin now, now doubt. I think he just asked you out on a date and told you to bring condoms. far from it, but I appreciate the humor! Seriously, I'm ROLF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 far from it, but I appreciate the humor! Seriously, I'm ROLF. You're a good sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 You're a good sport. Okay, but just don't try sneaking up behind me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Okay, but just don't try sneaking up behind me. I can check your prostate with no hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 While blindly condemning any shred of our legal system that has ties to religion shouldn't it behoove you and Adam to understand the origin of law? You're making a very silly point. Go ahead if you must, but I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove. People have no trouble distinguishing right and wrong even if they don't have religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) People have no trouble distinguishing right and wrong even if they don't have religion. "Right and wrong" are nothing more than social constructs, and in the West our sociatal underpinnings are firmly rooted in 4000 years of Judeo-Christian religion. Edited August 14, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 "Right and wrong" are nothing more than social constructs, and in the West our sociatal underpinnings are firmly rooted in 4000 years of Judeo-Christian religion. Moral reletavism is not something I believe. I'm willing to bet pre Judeo societies didn't think that killing your own newborn because it slept crappy was OK...and they had no concept of a monotheistic god. I don't under credit Jewish law. It gave us a framework for our laws, no doubt, but that was not my point. Religion has nothing to do with why many people act morally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Not quite. The merger of government force and massive corporate interests are his answer to everything. A few examples: the auto-bailouts preserved preserved large and entrenched corporate interests, the ACA does nothing but further enrich big insurance and big pharma, welfare expansion's chief purpose is as a subsidy for big agriculture, etc. Government hasn't nationalized any businesses or industries, they've simply helped those industries cartelize themselves against the public. That's what neo-mercantilism is. The package he sells to his base is socialist, but that's how the politics of division works. I get that (although I wasn't familiar with this terminology) although I'm not sure that one is more desirable than the other. Auto-bailouts could be seen as a payback to his union buddies or simply transferring power to unions, which socialists seem to love when they can't get the full force of the government involved. In the case of ACA I see that as an attempt to send us towards socialized medicine rather than an end in itself. But let's be honest, nationalizing any of these industries at this stage of the game is political suicide. It's incremental and he's taking much longer strides than any of his liberal predecessors since LBJ. At this point we're discussing taxonomy more than anything. Either way, based on the previously mentioned reasons, that his desired end-game is socialistic. We can debate whether it falls under a tight definition of socialism or some other system of top-down government run economy, but either way, his "solution" is always more federal government control. And the notion of the "moderates" who scoff at the idea that he's a socialist, that he's a center-left moderate who believes in free-market economics with common sense government safe-guards, is absurd and there is little to support their theory. "Right and wrong" are nothing more than social constructs, and in the West our sociatal underpinnings are firmly rooted in 4000 years of Judeo-Christian religion. You're living in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Moral reletavism is not something I believe. I'm willing to bet pre Judeo societies didn't think that killing your own newborn because it slept crappy was OK...and they had no concept of a monotheistic god. I don't under credit Jewish law. It gave us a framework for our laws, no doubt, but that was not my point. Religion has nothing to do with why many people act morally. Jewish law was borrowed anyway (Babylonians or Assyrians, I forget which.) And I can think of more than a few societies - even relatively recent ones - where killing is condoned or sanctioned by moral code. The Chinese only officially gave up killing female babies relatively recently. There's still places in New Guinea where'd you be on the menu/ Within the past 100 years, some sub-Saharan Africa tribes considered casual murder a rite of passage into manhood. And God only knows what happens in deep Amazonia. And that's just recently (within the last century), and off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 An interesting poll from WAPO. of course it's really too early to tell, but the immediate reaction is very encouraging for the Romney/Ryan campaign. - A new Washington Post/ABC poll shows a nearly entirely positive shift in Paul Ryan's favor after being selected as Mitt Romney's presidential running-mate. a. His positive ratings with all voters jumped 15% after being picked, while his negative ratings only jumped 1%. That's a +14% gain. b. His positive ratings with independents jumped 20%, while his negative rating only rose by 4%. That's a +16% gain. c. His positive rating with Democrats jumped 10%, but his negative ratings jumped 8%. That's a +2% gain. d. His positive rating with Republicans jumped 49%, while his negative rating jumped only 1%. That's a +48% gain. Now, here's the most important number. e. His positive rating with senior citizens jumped 18%, while his negative rating with seniors didn't jump, at all. In other words, the initial rush of reports that Ryan's Medicare plan might damage him with seniors hasn't yet borne fruit. - The biggest data point from my perspective is how he polled with seniors and independents. Not too shabby. Now it's incumbent upon them to define themselves as opposed to allow the party of demagoguery do it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 More "polling"; The Economists Get It James Carter August 14, 2012 George Bernard Shaw famously quipped, “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” But after nearly four years with Barack Obama in the White House, economists are increasingly reaching the same conclusion: The Obama administration’s economic policies aren’t working, and the country can do better. That was the finding of an Associated Press survey of economists last December. As reported by Politico, “President Barack Obama doesn’t get top marks for his economic policies in a new survey of economists, and two-thirds said they would pick Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential candidate who would do the best job managing the economy.” And this morning, more than 400 of the country’s leading economists — including five Nobel laureates — publicly broke with the Obama administration to endorse Governor Romney’s economic plan. The statement, printed below in its entirety (at link), touts Governor Romney’s reliance on “proven principles” and his promise to return America “to its tradition of economic freedom.” It also details the many ways in which the administration’s economic policies have failed America. In short, when it comes to the Obama administration’s economic policies, many of the country’s leading economists agree with another of George Bernard Shaw’s quips: “Better never than late.” http://www.nationalr...it-james-carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I applaud those economists but I'm guessing that 400 other economists (the Krugman camp) will come out in support of Obama. I wouldn't put much faith in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts