DVD Talk
2012 Republican Presidential Candidates - ptII [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates - ptII


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Red Dog
08-17-11, 12:45 PM
"First Lady Health Nanny?" :lol:

What is this? Red Eye? Fox and Friends?

You're right. I should have gone with the simpler "First Nanny." Catchier too.

Lemdog
08-17-11, 01:05 PM
Even in the wake of corn dog-gate I'd still vote for ya wenders. :)

It depends on what the meaning of the word corndog is. If a corndog requires a meat product, then that was a completely true statement....



(This thread made my day)

kvrdave
08-17-11, 02:33 PM
I also was a 7th Day Adventist for a short time. ;)


I always suspected, but it has been so long that now I forget why I suspected.

shadowhawk2020
08-17-11, 03:59 PM
http://i.imgur.com/kBJZR.gif

CRM114
08-17-11, 04:05 PM
:lol:

JasonF
08-17-11, 04:29 PM
Michele Bachmann throws a surprise birthday party for Elvis
by Jeff Labrecque

Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann, who’s riding a wave of publicity after winning last weekend’s Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, has the unfortunate — for a politician, anyway — gift of gaffe. In June, while visiting Waterloo, Ia., she mistakenly claimed it was the birthplace of American icon John Wayne — when, in fact, it was actually the hometown of serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

Yesterday, she put her shoe in her mouth again — though this time, it may have been a blue suede shoe. “Before we get started, let’s all say ‘Happy Birthday’ to Elvis Presley today,” Bachmann told a crowd in Spartanburg, S.C. “We played you a little bit of ‘Promised Land’ when we pulled up. You can’t do better than Elvis Presley and we thought we would celebrate his birthday as we get started to celebrating Take Our Country Back tour.”

Of course, yesterday was the 34th anniversary of the King’s death, not his birthday. An honest mistake. Don’t be cruel to a heart that’s true. Take a look at the clip.

i57OqxAJlK8

http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/08/17/michele-bachmann-elvis/

taa455
08-17-11, 04:34 PM
As a Republican, I'm not a fan of Bachmann. She seems too much like Palin who turned out to be a train wreck. Just my opinion based on what limited I've seen of Bachmann.

CRM114
08-17-11, 04:35 PM
The Perry/Bachmann ticket looks good to me. Bachmann, being the submissive one, would be a natural fit for VP. I may have to give money to them. :)

Artman
08-17-11, 04:36 PM
Ya know, candidates should just avoid historical references...and if they must make them, be absolutely sure of them. Trivial as it is, the fact they still get them so horribly wrong doesn't instill much confidence. This is for the presidency for crying out loud, nothing should be slipping through the cracks like this.

Red Dog
08-17-11, 04:39 PM
Ya know, candidates should just avoid historical references...and if they must make them, be absolutely sure of them. Trivial as it is, the fact they still get them so horribly wrong doesn't instill much confidence. This is for the presidency for crying out loud, nothing should be slipping through the cracks like this.

It didn't hurt old Joe who was watching FDR on the tube during the Great Depression. ;) Then again he was only running for VP.

But that's a damn funny screw up by Bachmann.

Artman
08-17-11, 04:53 PM
It didn't hurt old Joe who was watching FDR on the tube during the Great Depression. ;) Then again he was only running for VP.


Lol, Biden's somehow made it into that coveted slot that literally anything he says or does is laughed off as "that's Joe!" I don't know if it's old age or what, it's a mystery to me.

X
08-17-11, 05:04 PM
It didn't hurt old Joe who was watching FDR on the tube during the Great Depression. ;) Then again he was only running for VP.

But that's a damn funny screw up by Bachmann.Yeah, it's probably equivalent to the one Biden did when he asked the guy in the wheelchair to stand up. :lol:

Candidates who want to be considered seriously really ought to run anything they can think of saying by their staff before they go out in public.

JumpCutz
08-17-11, 05:42 PM
http://i.imgur.com/kBJZR.gif

:lol: rotfl Oh man, they are getting down on those dogs.

TheBigDave
08-17-11, 06:17 PM
Nate Silver's article on Perry has an interesting section where he handicaps the field.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3108/fivethirtyeightperryven.jpg

All of this is understandable, particularly if you take a party-centric view of the nomination process. The entire campaign has been about the Republican Party searching for a candidate who is (a) capable of running a strong race against Barack Obama, (b) reliably conservative, and (c) actually interested in running.

The search has not quite gone as planned. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana seemed to meet the first two criteria, but would not throw his hat into the ring. Mike Huckabee had reasonably strong favorability ratings with general-election voters. But he received little encouragement to run, perhaps because his positions were perceived as being too heterodox on economic policy.

Representative Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin meet the conservative criterion, but not the electability one. Newt Gingrich was already on tenuous grounds on electability, and when he dared to critique Mr. Ryan’s Medicare plan, he was shunned by the party.

Mitt Romney is still very much in the running — and has adopted essentially down-the-line orthodox Republican positions. But the party looks at his record in Massachusetts and does not seem persuaded that he is a movement conservative at heart.

The candidate who had seemed like the best hope for meeting all three qualifications was Tim Pawlenty. But he was vetoed by the Republican voters.

Enter Mr. Perry. He is running now and with plenty of popular support, already having pulled into the lead in one poll of primary voters.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/pondering-perrys-electability/

Jason
08-17-11, 06:22 PM
http://i.imgur.com/kBJZR.gif

I'm stuffed full of pizza and beer, and have live Black Sabbath playing in the background. This is triply mesmerizing.

daniel18
08-17-11, 07:34 PM
I wasn't aware that you were a 7th Day Adventist who observed the food laws. :)

I was a vegatarian for a long time. I also was a 7th Day Adventist for a short time. ;)

btw: I also have a box of corn dogs in the freezer. I don't eat 'em.


Raised and still practicing SDA, never followed the diet. It's that one little annoying ridiculous thing that have nothing to with salvation all religions have, like the Baptist's obsession with gays and Catholic's obsession with birth control.

I was at a redistricting meeting today and I did a little endorsement at the end of my speech for Rick Perry and told the state Congress to persuade Allen West to run for the federal Senate since there's no way in hell he's winning the same House Seat again to the Jewish lady. Did my little part to help Perry beat Romney in Florida, because it will be close. I sure hope that loon Santorum drops out too.

Josh-da-man
08-17-11, 11:04 PM
I like Sasha Grey sucking dick any time.

Now, that was probably my worst typo ever...

Josh-da-man
08-17-11, 11:05 PM
http://i.imgur.com/kBJZR.gif

That's like the "ass to ass" scene from Requiem for a Dream gone horribly, horribly wrong.

rw2516
08-18-11, 06:06 AM
Should be a big turd. They can both eat shit for all I care.

Superman07
08-18-11, 09:43 AM
I'm not even sure how to best to comment on a statement such as this so I'll just throw it out:

“The day that the president became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. Look at what it is today,” she said at an event in Greenville, S.C.. “Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again. That will happen.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61566.html#ixzz1VO6dkVFf

Pharoh
08-18-11, 09:46 AM
I'm not even sure how to best to comment on a statement such as this so I'll just throw it out:

While I don't know or care if she is right about the price of gas when President Obama took office, the rest of the statement isn't that crazy. Gas certainly could come down another dollar per gallon depending on policy choices.

Pharoh
08-18-11, 09:47 AM
Let me add, I think we may be heading there regardless. That isn't a good thing.

crazyronin
08-18-11, 09:59 AM
I'm not even sure how to best to comment on a statement such as this so I'll just throw it out:

Average price of gas on January 26, 2009 was $1.84

news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/average-gas-pricesjanuary-26-2009.html

Could President Bachmann institute policies to lower the price of gas to $2.00? :shrug:

CRM114
08-18-11, 10:03 AM
I'm not even sure how to best to comment on a statement such as this so I'll just throw it out:

She does realize gas was over $4 a gallon months before that though, right?

Superman07
08-18-11, 10:59 AM
Yeah, except somebody cited just the other day when there was deregulation or fees on the airline industry they just swallowed the difference as profits. So if as a policy choice we relax federal taxes or import fees on oil, what's to say that the oil companies and/or gas stations won't just keep prices the same and take the difference as profits? That's the issue with her statement and the aspect a politician doesn't have any control over.

daniel18
08-18-11, 11:55 AM
http://i.imgur.com/kBJZR.gif


Why are my pants bulging? :sarcasm:


Anyway, I as much as I really, really would like to see a female Republican canditate, and as much as Bachmann gives me a hard on (at least until she starts speaking about her santorum social views), she has very little experience and came from Congress, just like Obama. Perry on ther hand has had extensive executive experience, as well as some legislative experience, PLUS has not worked a single day in Washington! If that doesn't give you a hard on, then I don't know what does.

Jason
08-19-11, 05:46 PM
https://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/4b8174c9-6f73-426f-a061-7782882d245e.jpg

Two questions:

1) Is this a fishing expedition, or do they have strong suspicions but no proof?

2) Why did they use the Star Wars font?

crazyronin
08-19-11, 06:07 PM
https://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/4b8174c9-6f73-426f-a061-7782882d245e.jpg

Two questions:

1) Is this a fishing expedition, or do they have strong suspicions but no proof?

2) Why did they use the Star Wars font?

Robert Morrow is a prime example of the major problem in Ron Paul's campaign.

His supporters. Morrow is a complete whacky-doodle. (<---actual medical term)

Navinabob
08-19-11, 06:11 PM
Why are my pants bulging? :sarcasm:


Anyway, I as much as I really, really would like to see a female Republican canditate, and as much as Bachmann gives me a hard on (at least until she starts speaking about her santorum social views), she has very little experience and came from Congress, just like Obama. Perry on ther hand has had extensive executive experience, as well as some legislative experience, PLUS has not worked a single day in Washington! If that doesn't give you a hard on, then I don't know what does.

After seeing his grades in college, I'm certain the reason he didn't work in Washington DC was because he kept going to the west coast and getting lost somewhere around Seattle every time he tried.

sracer
08-19-11, 09:59 PM
https://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/4b8174c9-6f73-426f-a061-7782882d245e.jpg

Two questions:

1) Is this a fishing expedition, or do they have strong suspicions but no proof?

2) Why did they use the Star Wars font?
1. Strong suspicions. There have been various rumors about him being with men and women since the 1980's.

2. It's a trap.

Sean O'Hara
08-19-11, 10:33 PM
1. Strong suspicions. There have been various rumors about him being with men and women since the 1980's.

2. It's a trap.

A trap? You mean like:

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WXsYUa3JJwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jason
08-19-11, 11:07 PM
A trap? You mean like:

I think he was going for a star wars reference

http://www.ackbar.org/images/ackbarSitting.jpg

Josh-da-man
08-20-11, 12:02 AM
https://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/4b8174c9-6f73-426f-a061-7782882d245e.jpg

2) Why did they use the Star Wars font?

Maybe they think he's been fucking a Wookie.

Sean O'Hara
08-20-11, 01:06 PM
While y'all are bashing on Michele Bachmann for her love of corndogs, she's out discussing the serious issues that face this country, like the Soviet Union.

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lctT4dXMeLY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(Note that even if you replace "Soviet Union" with "Russia," the statement is still idiotic.)

sracer
08-20-11, 02:15 PM
While y'all are bashing on Michele Bachmann for her love of corndogs, she's out discussing the serious issues that face this country, like the Soviet Union.

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lctT4dXMeLY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(Note that even if you replace "Soviet Union" with "Russia," the statement is still idiotic.)
What exactly about her statement is "idiotic"?
- The Rise of India?
- The Rise of China?
- The Rise of the Soviet Union/Russia?
- There's a fear in the U.S. of an unstoppable decline?

Sean O'Hara
08-20-11, 02:29 PM
What exactly about her statement is "idiotic"?
- The Rise of India?
- The Rise of China?
- The Rise of the Soviet Union/Russia?
- There's a fear in the U.S. of an unstoppable decline?

- That she doesn't realize the Soviet Union stopped existing almost exactly twenty years ago.
- That Russia (if we're charitable and assume "Soviet Union" was a brain fart) is a rising power.
- That Chinese growth is sustainable despite serious economic and demographic issues facing the country.
- That the world is a zero-sum game where the gains of China and India must come at a cost to the US.
- That if China does somehow surpass the US, this is a bad thing, as though American greatness is synonymous with American supremacy.

RoyalTea
08-20-11, 02:37 PM
- That she doesn't realize the Soviet Union stopped existing almost exactly twenty years ago.
You're just playing into the Soviets' hands. That's exactly what they want us to think.

This photo was taken less than four weeks ago:

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/21/21007/USSR_Wins_R_jpg_600x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85.jpg

X
08-20-11, 02:48 PM
- That she doesn't realize the Soviet Union stopped existing almost exactly twenty years ago.
- That Russia (if we're charitable and assume "Soviet Union" was a brain fart) is a rising power.
- That Chinese growth is sustainable despite serious economic and demographic issues facing the country.
- That the world is a zero-sum game where the gains of China and India must come at a cost to the US.
- That if China does somehow surpass the US, this is a bad thing, as though American greatness is synonymous with American supremacy.
I find this post farily shocking in its naiveté.

- That she doesn't realize the Soviet Union stopped existing almost exactly twenty years ago.
I hear knowledgeable people make that mistake every once in a while, even I say it at times.

- That Russia (if we're charitable and assume "Soviet Union" was a brain fart) is a rising power.
You obviously haven't been watching the attempted consolidation of the former soviet republics, the increasing reliance of Europe on Russian energy, and the increasingly bellicose rhetoric coming out of Russia.

- That Chinese growth is sustainable despite serious economic and demographic issues facing the country.
Whether or not it sustains that growth, they are growing incredibly strong economically and militarily and that is giving them huge influence over the rest of the world, to the point that we recently cancelled a sale of F-16's to Taiwan.

- That the world is a zero-sum game where the gains of China and India must come at a cost to the US.
It doesn't have to, but it has and will continue to.

- That if China does somehow surpass the US, this is a bad thing, as though American greatness is synonymous with American supremacy.
I won't even bother with this statement.

Sean O'Hara
08-20-11, 04:10 PM
I find this post farily shocking in its naiveté.

- That she doesn't realize the Soviet Union stopped existing almost exactly twenty years ago.
I hear knowledgeable people make that mistake every once in a while, even I say it at times.

So you have a vested interest in proving that people who make that mistake aren't idiots.

- That Russia (if we're charitable and assume "Soviet Union" was a brain fart) is a rising power.
You obviously haven't been watching the attempted consolidation of the former soviet republics, the increasing reliance of Europe on Russian energy, and the increasingly bellicose rhetoric coming out of Russia.

I'm aware of all that, but that doesn't change the fact that they are, at best, a regional power with little ability to threaten any country that doesn't share a land border with them.

- That Chinese growth is sustainable despite serious economic and demographic issues facing the country.
Whether or not it sustains that growth, they are growing incredibly strong economically and militarily and that is giving them huge influence over the rest of the world, to the point that we recently cancelled a sale of F-16's to Taiwan.

You're not addressing the point.

- That the world is a zero-sum game where the gains of China and India must come at a cost to the US.
It doesn't have to, but it has and will continue to.

I demand graphs that support your claim.

- That if China does somehow surpass the US, this is a bad thing, as though American greatness is synonymous with American supremacy.
I won't even bother with this statement.

Why not? Do you believe American hegemony is the only proper order for the world?

kvrdave
08-20-11, 04:42 PM
Why not? Do you believe American hegemony is the only proper order for the world?

It is in our best interest. That should be self evident. Unless you think there is another country that will put our interests first.

eXcentris
08-20-11, 06:01 PM
Would those be Democrat or Republican interests? ;)

kvrdave
08-20-11, 06:05 PM
Probably Republican. Democrat interests involve us apologizing profusely to the rest of the world for how evil we are, except when we are bombing Libya.

RoyalTea
08-20-11, 06:18 PM
Probably Republican. Democrat interests involve us apologizing profusely to the rest of the world for how evil we are, except when we are bombing Libya.
Bombing's okay. We just can't put troops on the ground and shoot them. Because that would be rude.

Sean O'Hara
08-20-11, 10:26 PM
It is in our best interest. That should be self evident. Unless you think there is another country that will put our interests first.

And yet America wasn't a global hegemonic power for most of our history. Do you believe that if we went back to the level of power we had in, say, the 1880s that'd be bad?

Th0r S1mpson
08-20-11, 10:59 PM
I hear the 1880's were awesome.

Quack
08-20-11, 11:34 PM
My station in Albany was reporting tonight that George Pataki may be releasing soon that he's running.

Th0r S1mpson
08-21-11, 12:21 AM
Sulu?

Groucho
08-21-11, 10:40 AM
Sulu?Well, for now. But if he gets the nomination he'll have to choose a running mate.

Jason
08-21-11, 12:00 PM
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/republican-candidates-were-simpsons-characters.jpg

Superboy
08-21-11, 02:58 PM
And yet America wasn't a global hegemonic power for most of our history. Do you believe that if we went back to the level of power we had in, say, the 1880s that'd be bad?

yeah, but people kept invading us and fighting wars with us.

Sean O'Hara
08-21-11, 10:31 PM
yeah, but people kept invading us and fighting wars with us.

Name one 19th Century example after the War of 1812.

MoviePage
08-22-11, 10:31 AM
Aliens.

Luckily the cowboys were there to fight for American supremacy.

daniel18
08-22-11, 02:16 PM
After seeing his grades in college, I'm certain the reason he didn't work in Washington DC was because he kept going to the west coast and getting lost somewhere around Seattle every time he tried.


Using that logic, he'll be the best president ever considering our current one used to be a college professor.

chowderhead
08-22-11, 06:52 PM
http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Hundreds-gather-at-town-hall-meeting-featuring/o01HnKbGUkuyTaxO7ME_1w.cspx

Newt Gingrich decided to campaign last weekend in the all important caucus state of Hawaii tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2012, a couple of months and about 20 states after the lead off state of Iowa.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

Newt somehow managed to raise 2 million dollars of people's money and used some of that money to campaign hard in Hawaii. On an unrelated note, it was his 11th wedding anniversary (to one of his wives) during his stop in Hawaii. No word yet if his next stop is to the Empire State to campaign for the crucial Tiffany's voting bloc.

What a vanity run.

eXcentris
08-22-11, 08:34 PM
Aliens.

Luckily the cowboys were there to fight for American supremacy.

Hence the nickname America's Team. :)

X
08-22-11, 09:05 PM
http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Hundreds-gather-at-town-hall-meeting-featuring/o01HnKbGUkuyTaxO7ME_1w.cspx

Newt Gingrich decided to campaign last weekend in the all important caucus state of Hawaii tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2012, a couple of months and about 20 states after the lead off state of Iowa.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

Newt somehow managed to raise 2 million dollars of people's money and used some of that money to campaign hard in Hawaii. On an unrelated note, it was his 11th wedding anniversary (to one of his wives) during his stop in Hawaii. No word yet if his next stop is to the Empire State to campaign for the crucial Tiffany's voting bloc.

What a vanity run.I read he was trolling for contributions, not really votes. But I don't put it past him.

kvrdave
08-22-11, 09:59 PM
http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Hundreds-gather-at-town-hall-meeting-featuring/o01HnKbGUkuyTaxO7ME_1w.cspx

Newt Gingrich decided to campaign last weekend in the all important caucus state of Hawaii tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2012, a couple of months and about 20 states after the lead off state of Iowa.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

Newt somehow managed to raise 2 million dollars of people's money and used some of that money to campaign hard in Hawaii. On an unrelated note, it was his 11th wedding anniversary (to one of his wives) during his stop in Hawaii. No word yet if his next stop is to the Empire State to campaign for the crucial Tiffany's voting bloc.

What a vanity run.

I think very little of him and his run. Obviously trying for some position in a new administration. Yet, I would still vote for him over Obama. Not because Newt is good, but because he could not be worse than Obama.

X
08-22-11, 10:42 PM
I think very little of him and his run. Obviously trying for some position in a new administration. Yet, I would still vote for him over Obama. Not because Newt is good, but because he could not be worse than Obama.I'm trying to think of who I wouldn't vote for over Obama.

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards come to mind. John Kerry too. Teddy's dead so I don't have to worry about that. But then I doubt any of them will become the Republican/Libertarian/Green/Whatever nominee.

I wish a Democrat other than those would run in the primaries. I think there's an opening.

orangecrush
08-22-11, 10:52 PM
I think very little of him and his run. Obviously trying for some position in a new administration. Yet, I would still vote for him over Obama. Not because Newt is good, but because he could not be worse than Obama.One (of the many) problems with Newt, is that you don't really know if he would be worse than Obama. The guy literally says one (hyperbolic) thing one week and then the exact opposite the next week.

kvrdave
08-22-11, 10:54 PM
I would vote for any of those over Obama. They would do less damage, imo.

kvrdave
08-22-11, 10:55 PM
One (of the many) problems with Newt, is that you don't really know if he would be worse than Obama. The guy literally says one (hyperbolic) thing one week and then the exact opposite the next week.

I am at a loss as to how that could make him worse than Obama.

X
08-22-11, 11:01 PM
I would vote for any of those over Obama. They would do less damage, imo.The thing is, none of them has the moral integrity to be president. That's the first qualification. Obama is just incompetent. You can get over that, but you can't get over lowering your standards.

kvrdave
08-22-11, 11:19 PM
I agree with that. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that any change wouldn't be better. I simply think they could do less damage. They are more use to speaking to the left and moving to the center when the public is there. Obama actually believes he is doing good. Nothing worse than a guy as delusional as he is.

JasonF
08-22-11, 11:37 PM
I think very little of him and his run. Obviously trying for some position in a new administration.

Doubtful. What he's really trolling for is gullible donors willing to finance his lifestyle, with a healthy dose of "I'm still relevant, so keep on paying me for another decade or so, right-wing media!" thrown in.

JasonF
08-22-11, 11:44 PM
Nothing worse than a guy as delusional as he is.

http://bahairants.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/irony-meter.gif

X
08-22-11, 11:44 PM
Doubtful. What he's really trolling for is gullible donors willing to finance his lifestyle, with a healthy dose of "I'm still relevant, so keep on paying me for another decade or so, right-wing media!" thrown in.I agree. With the inability to control his mouth and ego it would be like having Joe Biden in your administration. Who the hell would do that?

kvrdave
08-22-11, 11:48 PM
http://bahairants.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/irony-meter.gif

:lol: A guy as delusional and in a position to inflict his vision on others. Better?

JasonF
08-22-11, 11:59 PM
:lol: A guy as delusional and in a position to inflict his vision on others. Better?

No, it's still pretty ironic that the He-Man Democrat Hater's Club is going on and on about how Obama is the most incompetent person in the history of the world, ever, and then pointing out that on top of everything else, he's delusional.

I mean, I can see disagreeing with him, I can see thinking he's not a good president, but the over the top nonsense you and X have been posting tonight (and post in general when it comes to this topic) may be explainable only by some sort of mental issue. I mean, if you genuinely believe Obama is the worst possible President we could have (except for Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and the corpse of Ted Kennedy), please make an appointment with your doctor ASAP to get tested for dementia. I don't want to have to worry about you. :sad:

TheBigDave
08-23-11, 12:04 AM
New poll from Gallup. Surprised to see Bachmann and Paul so close.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/5321/nerwnzwkyd8ljnpd6v8a.gif

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6854/bswp5x4ife2vnk9cti74vw.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

kvrdave
08-23-11, 12:18 AM
No, it's still pretty ironic that the He-Man Democrat Hater's Club is going on and on about how Obama is the most incompetent person in the history of the world, ever, and then pointing out that on top of everything else, he's delusional.
Delusional from reality. Not from his or yours.

I mean, I can see disagreeing with him,
I call bullshit.
I can see thinking he's not a good president,
I call bullshit.
but the over the top nonsense you and X have been posting tonight (and post in general when it comes to this topic) may be explainable only by some sort of mental issue. I mean, if you genuinely believe Obama is the worst possible President we could have (except for Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and the corpse of Ted Kennedy), please make an appointment with your doctor ASAP to get tested for dementia. I don't want to have to worry about you. :sad:


:lol: It simply seems unreal that one can look at the state of the union when he took office, look at it now, and conclude that he needs to continue on for 4 more years.

Ghostbuster
08-23-11, 12:32 AM
I consider myself an independent voter, and I cannot fathom voting for Bachmann or Perry. There is a small chance that I would vote for Romney.

I support some emergent and traditional Republican policies. For example, I agree that we need to balance the budget in the near future. I also happen to be pro-life. (However, I am pro-life in the broadest sense. I oppose capital punishment and assisted suicide, and I'm also vegetarian.)

Like a number of pundits, I think Bachmann and Perry are going to rub many independents the wrong way. Both candidates appear to be ideologues who do not understand the need for compromise in politics. And as far as I can tell, they are also scientifically illiterate. Scientific skepticism requires deep understanding (not necessarily expertise) and skillful argumentation. Bachmann and Perry present conclusions with neither relevant claims nor compelling evidence. In short, all indicators point toward willful ignorance on matters of science. I find the prospect of either candidate sitting in the White House troubling, to say the least.

With Obama, I at least know what to expect. But given the poor options, I may abstain from voting altogether for the first time.

X
08-23-11, 12:48 AM
I mean, if you genuinely believe Obama is the worst possible President we could have (except for Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and the corpse of Ted Kennedy), please make an appointment with your doctor ASAP to get tested for dementia. I don't want to have to worry about you. :sad:I'd be interested in seeing your list of worse potential presidents who are Democrats. I just listed ones who almost made it.

JasonF
08-23-11, 01:03 AM
:lol: It simply seems unreal that one can look at the state of the union when he took office, look at it now, and conclude that he needs to continue on for 4 more years.

And it seems unreal to me that one can look at the history of Republican economic policies over the last three or four decades and conclude that what this country really needs is President Rick Perry, but that seems to be the world a significant number of people are living in, so there you go.

By the way, real GDP is up about 5% since Obama took office, the DJIA is up over 30%, and the S&P 500 is up over 72%. Comparable numbers for Bush's eight years were +14% on GDP, -21% for the DJIA, and -31% for the S&P. Or, to be fair, let's look at where Bush was by August 22, 2003: up about 4% on GDP, -11% on the DJIA, and -3% on the S&P. All of which adds up to "Haters gonna hate."

And yeah, unemployment sucks, and I wish Obama was doing more about it, but the reality is, on economics, we're a damned sight better off than if he had let the automotive industry collapse, or if he hadn't implemented the stimulus package back in 2009.

JasonF
08-23-11, 01:04 AM
I'd be interested in seeing your list of worse potential presidents who are Democrats. I just listed ones who almost made it.

So you can call me an Obamabot? Thanks but no thanks.

X
08-23-11, 01:06 AM
And yeah, unemployment sucks, and I wish Obama was doing more about it, Oh, he's doing plenty about about it. He's very effective in that area.

I'm sure you've seen how "green jobs" are going. But then that must be due to Bush policies.

kvrdave
08-23-11, 01:31 AM
I support some emergent and traditional Republican policies. For example, I agree that we need to balance the budget in the near future. I also happen to be pro-life. (However, I am pro-life in the broadest sense. I oppose capital punishment and assisted suicide, and I'm also vegetarian.)


How odd. I am neutral on abortion, in that I think it is abhorrent, but recognize the reality is that killing babies will always be allowed, so I just don't really give it much thought. But I honestly believe people should have the right to die. I've just seen too many people I know that have had modern medicine keep their heart pumping far beyond what they wanted, but simply weren't allowed the dignity to die. Instead, incredibly proud people were reduced to having their asses wiped for them, etc. in the name of the sanctity of life. It is definitely a position I have changed on in the past few years.

kvrdave
08-23-11, 01:38 AM
And it seems unreal to me that one can look at the history of Republican economic policies over the last three or four decades and conclude that what this country really needs is President Rick Perry, but that seems to be the world a significant number of people are living in, so there you go.

By the way, real GDP is up about 5% since Obama took office, the DJIA is up over 30%, and the S&P 500 is up over 72%. Comparable numbers for Bush's eight years were +14% on GDP, -21% for the DJIA, and -31% for the S&P. Or, to be fair, let's look at where Bush was by August 22, 2003: up about 4% on GDP, -11% on the DJIA, and -3% on the S&P. All of which adds up to "Haters gonna hate."

And yeah, unemployment sucks, and I wish Obama was doing more about it, but the reality is, on economics, we're a damned sight better off than if he had let the automotive industry collapse, or if he hadn't implemented the stimulus package back in 2009.


Ah, statistics. Far better to use those particular ones than the ones that would include they day he was elected. :lol:

And we could both puff out our chests about "could've, would've" with the economy. "We'd be far worse if we hadn't spent a trillion on shovel ready jobs" you'd say, and I'd claim the opposite, and there is really no way to tell. "It kept the unemployment from being even higher" you'd say, and I'd disagree. It is a meaningless argument of hypotheticals.

I assume you are simply use to politicians acting the way Obama does because you are from Chicago. I was bamboozled into thinking he wasn't a Chicago politician because of what he said. If I had been 22 instead of 38, I'd chalk it up to being naive. But I was jaded to begin with and believed his hope and change. It may not have been a lie in his mind as he said it, but he never lived up to it.

Tell me something about his presidency that hasn't been business as usual? All the things he stood for as a Senator, he is against as a president, and vice versa. And to cap it all off, his plans going forward seem to be from Bush Sr. Stay the course.

Superboy
08-23-11, 07:45 AM
I am at a loss as to how that could make him worse than Obama.

To be fair, Obama has stood by one opinion consistently: that everything was terrible when he took office, and his hands are tied by republicans.

Superboy
08-23-11, 07:52 AM
Name one 19th Century example after the War of 1812.

The Spanish-American War?

And even after the War of 1812, the UK, Spain, and France weren't done trying to fuck with us.

To be fair, i'm not saying that it justifies any kind of obscene tyranny. I oppose such policies. It's as if no one remembers the Marshall Plan. Democratic infrastructure can be maintained through other means.

But when it comes down to the wire, it's naive to assume that other countries will play fair.

JasonF
08-23-11, 08:58 AM
Tell me something about his presidency that hasn't been business as usual?

Don't you remember -- he instituted Government Death Panels and crammed gays down the army's throat, to name two. We don't have millions of Americans marching around holding signs that say "Socialism" with the O as Obama's campaign logo for no good reason, after all.

CRM114
08-23-11, 09:17 AM
I'm trying to think of who I wouldn't vote for over Obama.

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards come to mind. John Kerry too. Teddy's dead so I don't have to worry about that. But then I doubt any of them will become the Republican/Libertarian/Green/Whatever nominee.

I wish a Democrat other than those would run in the primaries. I think there's an opening.

I love how Republicans think there is an opening in the Democratic primary. :lol:


I agree with that. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that any change wouldn't be better. I simply think they could do less damage. They are more use to speaking to the left and moving to the center when the public is there. Obama actually believes he is doing good. Nothing worse than a guy as delusional as he is.


Or Republicans that ridiculously overstate the amount of "damage" a Democratic president (whom Democrats consider pretty centrist) is doing.

CRM114
08-23-11, 09:24 AM
:lol: It simply seems unreal that one can look at the state of the union when he took office, look at it now, and conclude that he needs to continue on for 4 more years.

Wait. Do you actually remember the state of the union in January 2009? I do. And its not much different than now other than the banking industry having a bit more stability and the US auto industry still existing and Osama bin Laden being dead and Qadaffi being ousted. Oh wait...

JasonF
08-23-11, 09:47 AM
Ah, statistics. Far better to use those particular ones than the ones that would include they day he was elected. :lol:

If I really wanted to be fair, I would have thrown out all of Bush's bad statistics (those were residuals from Clinton on one end, and anticipation of Obama on the other). I think once you adjust for that, Bush improved the economy by thirty two trajillion percent, and Obama personally came to your place of business and told your boss to fire you.

Lemdog
08-23-11, 09:59 AM
To be fair, Obama has stood by one opinion consistently: that everything was terrible when he took office, and his hands are tied by republicans.

For the first year of his presidency he basically had 60 seats in the Senate, and a majority in the house. He could have passed anything he wanted. What did he do? He had to beg, bribe, and steal to pass Obamacare. Or maybe my short-term memory is going in my old age.

sracer
08-23-11, 10:03 AM
I agree with that. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that any change wouldn't be better. I simply think they could do less damage. They are more use to speaking to the left and moving to the center when the public is there. Obama actually believes he is doing good. Nothing worse than a guy as delusional as he is.
How do you know that he actually believes that he is doing good? Are you a mind/heart reader?

You find it nearly impossible to believe that any change wouldn't be better... well, given the current field of Republican candidates you may just find out that it is possible.

The "anybody but ...." mentality of voting is how we ended up with a President Obama. Keep THAT in mind.



For the first year of his presidency he basically had 60 seats in the Senate, and a majority in the house. He could have passed anything he wanted. What did he do? He had to beg, bribe, and steal to pass Obamacare. Or maybe my short-term memory is going in my old age.
Superboy doesn't believe that it is true... he was simply citing something that President Obama has been consistent in. :)

Lemdog
08-23-11, 10:12 AM
Superboy doesn't believe that it is true... he was simply citing something that President Obama has been consistent in. :)

Ah, my bad. Carry on.

kvrdave
08-23-11, 11:19 AM
Never mind everything I have said. I am now convinced that Obama is a great president. Look at how great our country is and how steadily people are approving of the job he is doing. Anyone with eyes can see how great things are, and we have him to thank.

Th0r S1mpson
08-23-11, 11:36 AM
Wait. Do you actually remember the state of the union in January 2009? I do. And its not much different than now

This "Change" thing is awesome.

Lemdog
08-23-11, 11:51 AM
This "Change" thing is awesome.

Don't forget "Hope".

CRM114
08-23-11, 02:11 PM
If I really wanted to be fair, I would have thrown out all of Bush's bad statistics (those were residuals from Clinton on one end, and anticipation of Obama on the other). I think once you adjust for that, Bush improved the economy by thirty two trajillion percent, and Obama personally came to your place of business and told your boss to fire you.

The thing that left a bad taste in my mouth is when the Obama jack-booted thugs came and took my guns away.

CRM114
08-23-11, 02:19 PM
Never mind everything I have said. I am now convinced that Obama is a great president. Look at how great our country is and how steadily people are approving of the job he is doing. Anyone with eyes can see how great things are, and we have him to thank.

Approval, shmapproval. That Gallup poll still shows Obama splitting the vote with the Repub candidate and the campaign hasn't even started yet. It seems just like 2004 when the Democrats though Bush was a goner and totally overestimated the country's overall negative opinion of him. Plus he went against a weak candidate which is apparently a given in 2012 too.

CRM114
08-23-11, 02:20 PM
This "Change" thing is awesome.

Yeah, the whole Change thing went out the window once Obama was handed a clusterfuck of an economy. Heckuva job, Bushie!

clappj
08-23-11, 02:23 PM
Yeah, the whole Change thing went out the window once Obama was handed a clusterfuck of an economy. Heckuva job, Bushie!

http://www.cagle.com/working/101026/fairrington.jpg

Th0r S1mpson
08-23-11, 02:23 PM
Yeah, the whole Change thing went out the window once Obama was handed a clusterfuck of an economy. Heckuva job, Bushie!

I knew Obama's lack of Change was Bush's fault. :lol:

CRM114
08-23-11, 02:25 PM
Bush was awesome! :up:

wishbone
08-23-11, 02:27 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/2yxk976.jpg

Th0r S1mpson
08-23-11, 02:28 PM
I guess when you can keep saying that, it makes no difference whatsoever what Obama does or does not do. Convenient.

kvrdave
08-23-11, 02:37 PM
Bush was awesome! :up:

"My guy doesn't suck when compared to others that suck really bad. I am justified in belief in him."

clappj
08-23-11, 02:39 PM
Bush was awesome! :up:

No he wasn't.
However, some people don't believe that all of Obama's shortcomings can be traced back to Bush.

wendersfan
08-23-11, 02:54 PM
For the first year of his presidency he basically had 60 seats in the Senate, and a majority in the house. He could have passed anything he wanted.You know better than this.

Lemdog
08-23-11, 03:36 PM
You know better than this.

:lol: Can't you let me have my fun.

CRM114
08-23-11, 03:48 PM
You know, you'd think our more politically astute members would recognize that it's a bit harsh to pass judgement on a dude that was handed a severe recession and banking crisis after 2.5 years on the job. I'm not a huge Obama fan (he's way too accommodating to the right wing) but the economic criticism is a bit unfair. But I understand it goes with the territory and like when Bush was President, the opposing forces will grasp on any straw of negativity.

classicman2
08-23-11, 04:05 PM
I'm not a huge Obama fan (he's way too accommodating to the right wing) ....

:lol:

You've gotta be kidding.

CRM114
08-23-11, 04:18 PM
Why would I be kidding? The debt ceiling deal wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The Bush tax cut extension wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The health care reform plan wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? Guantanamo, terrorist trials in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan. Get real man.

clappj
08-23-11, 04:31 PM
Why would I be kidding? The debt ceiling deal wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The Bush tax cut extension wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The health care reform plan wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? Guantanamo, terrorist trials in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan. Get real man.

It's possible classicman2 meant the first part, instead of the second.

CRM114
08-23-11, 04:33 PM
So then why would I be a "huge fan" of Obama given his capitulation? I like the idea of Obama (a young, non-southern, academic) but his follow through is lacking. One just hopes he plans on loosening up a bit in his second term. That said, who am I going to support? Rick fucking Perry?

slop101
08-23-11, 04:34 PM
Yeah, Obama's problem really is that he's trying to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one - if you don't see that, you've been watching too much Fox News.

Th0r S1mpson
08-23-11, 04:43 PM
Why would I be kidding? The debt ceiling deal wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The Bush tax cut extension wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The health care reform plan wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? Guantanamo, terrorist trials in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan. Get real man.

But, also according to you, his lack of Change is the fault of George Bush. So, is Bush calling Obama every day and making him appease the right wing with the threat of a wedgie, or does Obama actually share a great deal of the blame here?

clappj
08-23-11, 05:00 PM
I like the idea of Obama (a young, non-southern, academic)

Wait! Obama isn't southern?

http://obama08.policlicks.com/video/Obamas-speech-in-Charlotte

I'm sincerely looking forward to an encore performance from 'ole Foghorn Obamahorn, at next year's DNC here in Charlotte! :)

Th0r S1mpson
08-23-11, 05:03 PM
Wait! Obama isn't southern?

Kenya, not Zimbabwe. -rolleyes-

PatD
08-23-11, 08:03 PM
When Rick Perry easily trounces Obama and is elected 45th POTUS next November, they can finally start a work program for the elderly and disabled--getting them jobs at glue factories...as glue.

I guess I'll be changing my name to Elmer come '13.

Pharoh
08-23-11, 09:23 PM
You know, you'd think our more politically astute members would recognize that it's a bit harsh to pass judgement on a dude that was handed a severe recession and banking crisis after 2.5 years on the job. I'm not a huge Obama fan (he's way too accommodating to the right wing) but the economic criticism is a bit unfair. But I understand it goes with the territory and like when Bush was President, the opposing forces will grasp on any straw of negativity.


I think criticism is entirely legitimate, fair, and necessary. No person worth listening to is denying the global recession that started before the President took office, or the financial crisis that was years in the making and predated Presidents Obama and Bush.

However, calling into question his focus on "health care reform", whether you agree with the legislation or not, his stance on regulation, his failure to adequately and substantively address the housing issue, and his insistence on a "stimulus" plan that many, including even some here, accurately predicted would not be an efficient and cost effective stimulative measure is well within the realm of reasonableness and fairness.

Sean O'Hara
08-23-11, 10:28 PM
You know, you'd think our more politically astute members would recognize that it's a bit harsh to pass judgement on a dude that was handed a severe recession and banking crisis after 2.5 years on the job.

After one year, sure that's harsh. After two years, not so much.

And lets not pretend that Obama didn't bring this criticism on himself with the way he sold his stimulus measures -- when you offer dire predictions of what will happen if your plan isn't approved, and then the plan is approved and the dire predictions come true, you have no one else to blame when people start calling you ineffectual.

kvrdave
08-23-11, 10:43 PM
When Rick Perry easily trounces Obama and is elected 45th POTUS next November, they can finally start a work program for the elderly and disabled--getting them jobs at glue factories...as glue.

I guess I'll be changing my name to Elmer come '13.

The Superbowl pales in comparison to your Hyperbole.

kvrdave
08-23-11, 10:44 PM
The health care reform plan wasn't a capitulation to the right wing?

The right wing was demanding health care reform??

classicman2
08-23-11, 11:15 PM
Why would I be kidding? The debt ceiling deal wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The Bush tax cut extension wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? The health care reform plan wasn't a capitulation to the right wing? Guantanamo, terrorist trials in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan. Get real man.

1. You seem to believe that any one to the right of Bernie Sanders is a right-winger.

2. Obama health care was hardly a capitulation to the right-wing. He got, basically what he wanted from the congressional Democrats. Perhaps you think Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, etc. are right-wingers. Just because Obama was politically astute enough to realize that he wasn't going to get what he wanted - single payer - you think he capitulated to the right wing. He could count votes.

You're the one who needs to get in the real world, man.

Groucho
08-23-11, 11:19 PM
When Rick Perry easily trounces Obama and is elected 45th POTUS next November, they can finally start a work program for the elderly and disabled--getting them jobs at glue factories...as glue.Call me a tea-bagger if you must, but I am going to argue that this wouldn't happen.

hahn
08-24-11, 12:46 AM
What I find scary is that some of you actually would vote for Perry or Bachmann if one of them ends up with the nomination. I get that you don't like (hate) Obama, but to think that you actually would prefer Perry or Bachmann? That's just FUBAR.

And it's beyond me how you can hate Obama but still loved Bush. What I dislike MOST about Obama is that he hasn't reversed Bush's most heinous actions - invading two countries, raising military spending, tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy, and deregulation of banks. And yet, you guys hate him because...? What's so liberal about what he's done?

DeputyDave
08-24-11, 12:49 AM
What I find scary is that some of you actually would vote for Perry or Bachmann if one of them ends up with the nomination. I get that you don't like (hate) Obama, but to think that you actually would prefer Perry or Bachmann? That's just FUBAR.

I wouldn't love it but I would vote for either in a heartbeat.

PatD
08-24-11, 12:52 AM
It's hyperbole, but not by much. When Karl Rove is appalled at Rick Perry, then this country has got a big problem waiting in the wings.

We live in a time in history that would make George Orwell piss his pants in utter horror. The level of sophistication in propaganda and groupthink in America, makes Oceania look the golden age of Ancient Greece.

kvrdave
08-24-11, 01:03 AM
It's hyperbole, but not by much. When Karl Rove is appalled at Rick Perry, then this country has got a big problem waiting in the wings.


Isn't Karl Rove appalled at Obama as well? If you base your notion on who Karl Rove doesn't like, how do you tell the two apart?

DeputyDave
08-24-11, 01:04 AM
It's hyperbole, but not by much. When Karl Rove is appalled at Rick Perry, then this country has got a big problem waiting in the wings.

We live in a time in history that would make George Orwell piss his pants in utter horror. The level of sophistication in propaganda and groupthink in America, makes Oceania look the golden age of Ancient Greece.

I agree but don't worry, the left will run out of steam after a while. We can hope at least.

PatD
08-24-11, 01:07 AM
I agree but don't worry, the left will run out of steam after a while. We can hope at least.

Well, it takes a lot of energy for the left of this country to continuously roll over and play dead for the opposition ALL THE FREAKIN' TIME.

movielib
08-24-11, 01:11 AM
I wouldn't love it but I would vote for either in a heartbeat.
Perry - I'd hold my nose and I think I could do it.
Bachmann - I'd hold my nose, gag and I don't know.

First choice - Gary Johnson but in what alternate reality?

Second - Ron Paul - where's that alternate reality again?

Third - Pawlenty - Quitter!

Huntsman - No!

Romney - No! OK, maybe, I don't think so, crap!

Newt - -eek-

Santorum - Ugh!

We're in deep shit.

DeputyDave
08-24-11, 01:15 AM
Perry - I'd hold my nose and I think I could do it.
Bachmann - I'd hold my nose, gag and I don't know.

First choice - Gary Johnson but in what alternate reality?

Second - Ron Paul - where's that alternate reality again?

Third - Pawlenty - Quitter!

Huntsman - No!

Romney - No! OK, maybe, I don't think so, crap!

Newt - -eek-

Santorum - Ugh!

We're in deep shit.

Good list (with the exception of Ron Paul) but I'd end up holding my nose and voting for any of them.

JasonF
08-24-11, 01:29 AM
Isn't Karl Rove appalled at Obama as well? If you base your notion on who Karl Rove doesn't like, how do you tell the two apart?

One of them is black. I'm 75% sure it's Perry.

classicman2
08-24-11, 08:59 AM
One of the reasons that Rove dislikes Perry is the fact that Perry soundly defeated the candidate that Rove endorsed in the Texas Republican Primary governorship race.

CRM114
08-24-11, 09:15 AM
But, also according to you, his lack of Change is the fault of George Bush. So, is Bush calling Obama every day and making him appease the right wing with the threat of a wedgie, or does Obama actually share a great deal of the blame here?

It's easy to distill it down to Bush but I'd say the rational position is that the US Government and financial institutions along with Bush's massive deficit spending on wars ruined the economy. To not acknowledge that Obama was handed a shit sandwich on Inauguration Day is revising history. And to say the guy should have cleaned up the mess in 2.5 years is being a bit harsh. But it's politics where there is very little patience - I'm willing to let you give some clown like Rick Perry the reigns. It's obvious that John McCain's economic acumen would have proved invaluable.

CRM114
08-24-11, 09:19 AM
I think criticism is entirely legitimate, fair, and necessary. No person worth listening to is denying the global recession that started before the President took office, or the financial crisis that was years in the making and predated Presidents Obama and Bush.

However, calling into question his focus on "health care reform", whether you agree with the legislation or not, his stance on regulation, his failure to adequately and substantively address the housing issue, and his insistence on a "stimulus" plan that many, including even some here, accurately predicted would not be an efficient and cost effective stimulative measure is well within the realm of reasonableness and fairness.

Absolutely.

It's interesting to hear the opinion that health care is not important nor was it a national priority. Of course, this opinion is always coming from those with comfortable health care options.

As for the stimulus, I think most economists agreed it was necessary. Now we can debate that it was too small and not targeted where it was needed.

Venusian
08-24-11, 09:21 AM
I haven't kept up with the campaign so far so I don't know much about the candidates. Why is Perry so evil?

CRM114
08-24-11, 09:23 AM
1. You seem to believe that any one to the right of Bernie Sanders is a right-winger.

And you seem to think anyone to left of Tom Coburn is a left winger.

2. Obama health care was hardly a capitulation to the right-wing. He got, basically what he wanted from the congressional Democrats. Perhaps you think Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, etc. are right-wingers. Just because Obama was politically astute enough to realize that he wasn't going to get what he wanted - single payer - you think he capitulated to the right wing. He could count votes.

You're the one who needs to get in the real world, man.

Changing the plan from basically eliminating private insurance (the public option) to a completely private system that really doesn't solve any of the underlying problems was an outright capitulation to the right wing. Only those that caricature Obama as some left wing loon would not see this. I suppose this is what is bandied about around the hog farm though.

classicman2
08-24-11, 09:44 AM
I don't characterize Obama as a left-wing loon. I do understand the political realities which you seem not to understand.

I suppose you believe that Obama capitulated to the right-wing in the raising the debt ceiling debate. He agreed to a minute (even it if occurs - which is doubtful) cut in spending.

You don't get exactly what you want, especially when you have divided government. We, in effect, nearly always have divided government considering the rules of the U. S. Senate. Compromise is nearly always necessary. Give a little - take a little. That's hardly capitulation.

Radicals on both ends of the political spectrum are seldomly satisfied.

CRM114
08-24-11, 10:00 AM
Tell me again why for the first time in recent memory "something had to be given" to raise the debt ceiling? The very act itself was a massive capitulation. What "was given" the last 3 dozen times the debt ceiling was raised?

PatD
08-24-11, 10:12 AM
^^
What was given? Not a care in the world. But then the Black Guy...er, I mean the Kenyan showed up and suddenly money is an object.

classicman2
08-24-11, 10:23 AM
Tell me again why for the first time in recent memory "something had to be given" to raise the debt ceiling? The very act itself was a massive capitulation. What "was given" the last 3 dozen times the debt ceiling was raised?

And that has just what to do with 'capitulation to the right-wing?'

Venusian
08-24-11, 11:54 AM
^^
What was given? Not a care in the world. But then the Black Guy...er, I mean the Kenyan showed up and suddenly money is an object.

Can't you see past Obama's race?

If you think the problem was Obama, why was it raised earlier in his Presidency?

Venusian
08-24-11, 12:15 PM
Tell me again why for the first time in recent memory "something had to be given" to raise the debt ceiling? The very act itself was a massive capitulation. What "was given" the last 3 dozen times the debt ceiling was raised?

You realize it wasn't just the right that was against raising the debt ceiling? Just ask Senator Obama.

kvrdave
08-24-11, 12:18 PM
It's interesting to hear the opinion that health care is not important nor was it a national priority. Of course, this opinion is always coming from those with comfortable health care options.


I remember it being a national priority, but I had thought that the need for reform had to do with things like allowing the purchase of prescriptions from other trusted countries (like Canada), keeping insurance companies from being able to dump people when they get sick, requiring prices to be desplayed for services etc. You may have thought the pulse of the nation was different than I, but I never had the impression that requiring people to purchase health insurance was a priority.

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 12:20 PM
I think Ron Paul is going to emerge in the final two here. I'm starting to hope he wins the nomination so America can find out what real Change would look like. Might be scary. But it's already pretty scary, now isn't it...

X
08-24-11, 12:21 PM
I remember it being a national priority, but I had thought that the need for reform had to do with things like allowing the purchase of prescriptions from other trusted countries (like Canada), keeping insurance companies from being able to dump people when they get sick, requiring prices to be desplayed for services etc. You may have thought the pulse of the nation was different than I, but I never had the impression that requiring people to purchase health insurance was a priority.You forgot another major goal -- holding down the cost of insurance. That sure worked good.

kvrdave
08-24-11, 12:27 PM
In fact, that was the primary goal, and all the other suggestions were used to accomplish it. We seemed to like our health care system other than the cost. And we end up with a system far worse, and more expensive. CHANGE. :lol:

CRM114
08-24-11, 12:32 PM
And that has just what to do with 'capitulation to the right-wing?'

Right wing demanded. Obama obliged. Are you serious? You must be intentionally being obtuse just to get me going.

CRM114
08-24-11, 12:33 PM
You realize it wasn't just the right that was against raising the debt ceiling? Just ask Senator Obama.

Oh please. You know better than that.

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 12:35 PM
Right wing demanded. Obama obliged. Are you serious? You must be intentionally being obtuse just to get me going.

Republicans put up a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling first. In addition to Republicans, 88 Democrats voted against it. Why?

CRM114
08-24-11, 12:37 PM
I remember it being a national priority, but I had thought that the need for reform had to do with things like allowing the purchase of prescriptions from other trusted countries (like Canada), keeping insurance companies from being able to dump people when they get sick, requiring prices to be desplayed for services etc. You may have thought the pulse of the nation was different than I, but I never had the impression that requiring people to purchase health insurance was a priority.

:lol: Why in the hell would I want to buy drugs from Canada? You call that reform? How about controlling price gouging in the US? I never heard anyone demand to see pricing charts for services. Anyone that has ever been in the hospital for any period of time can tell you that pricing charts is just about the lowest priority for anyone in that position.

As for mandating health insurance, it used to be a bellwether for Repubs - personal responsibility. Instead now, they'd rather hang uninsured bills on MY back. That is the preferable position. It's laughable. In fact, it used to be the Repub position until it became a Democratic one.

CRM114
08-24-11, 12:40 PM
Republicans put up a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling first. In addition to Republicans, 88 Democrats voted against it. Why?

That might hold weight if in fact any Republican voted for the bill "they put up." :lol:

kvrdave
08-24-11, 12:41 PM
:lol: Why in the hell would I want to buy drugs from Canada? You call that reform? How about controlling price gouging in the US?

The one accomplishes the other.

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 12:51 PM
That might hold weight if in fact any Republican voted for the bill "they put up." :lol:

So why did 88 Democrats vote in line with Republicans? That's almost half of them.

Lemdog
08-24-11, 01:00 PM
So why did 88 Democrats vote in line with Republicans? That's almost half of them.

They did not realize that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies,you can play around with. Lots of members of Congress have this problem, Presidents not so much. ;)

kvrdave
08-24-11, 01:01 PM
Now accuse HIM of rationalizing. :lol:

Venusian
08-24-11, 01:47 PM
Oh please. You know better than that.

So Senator Obama was right wing?

CRM114
08-24-11, 02:06 PM
So why did 88 Democrats vote in line with Republicans? That's almost half of them.

Because it was a political trap?

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 02:13 PM
They were afraid of being viewed as fiscally irresponsible. They were tricked into looking into more fiscally responsible actions. How sinister.

Venusian
08-24-11, 02:17 PM
I don't know much about that vote. What's the history behind it? Why was it a trap?

CRM114
08-24-11, 02:20 PM
They were afraid of being viewed as fiscally irresponsible. They were tricked into looking into more fiscally responsible actions. How sinister.

Of course. That's how a political trap works. Party in power introduces controversial (even if contrived) legislation that they know will not pass. They "dare" the minority party to go out on a limb so they can be painted the way the majority wants to paint them. Thus, the minority party says fuck that and votes with the majority. This isn't really difficult stuff to grasp. It happens all the time.

Calling that a clean bill like the last three dozen clean bills is pretty silly.

CRM114
08-24-11, 02:21 PM
I don't know much about that vote. What's the history behind it? Why was it a trap?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/163107-debt-vote-set-to-trap-democrats

kvrdave
08-24-11, 02:27 PM
Because it was a political trap?

At some point you still have to do your job. Like the Senate and a budget proposal.

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 02:30 PM
The question is, why was a clean bill now viewed by the public as irresponsible? It's not simply because Obama is president, otherwise it would not have been a perceived threat to Democrat supporters.

classicman2
08-24-11, 02:33 PM
Setting political traps is used by both parties in both houses of congress a lot of times.

One of the most used traps is to submit budgets from the president by the party opposite of his party to embarass the presidents party frequently won't even bring his budget up. This was a common practice when Clinton was president, and the Repubs controlled congress.

Hmm! I just noticed just how the first sentence in the second paragraph of this post is so poorly constructed. My apologies. :)

CRM114
08-24-11, 02:39 PM
The question is, why was a clean bill now viewed by the public as irresponsible? It's not simply because Obama is president, otherwise it would not have been a perceived threat to Democrat supporters.

Why is a clean bill now viewed as irresponsible? Right wing propaganda. The same technique used to demonize Obama as this Socialist who is intentionally running up this huge debt (ignoring all of the context surrounding said debt).

kvrdave
08-24-11, 02:41 PM
Perhaps a clean bill is viewed as irresponsible simply because of the size of the debt now. At some point that becomes relevant, doesn't it?

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 02:42 PM
It's both.

One might presume that the propaganda and the high level of debt are actually related.

I don't know... I've heard enough dire economic predictions (even from the President himself) to think that touting the deficit problem is not mere propaganda.

CRM114
08-24-11, 03:05 PM
And the debt miraculously reached this area known as the "high level" in January 2009. What a coincidence.

Yes, the debt is a problem but it had nothing to do with the debt ceiling debate. The debt has been spent and the bill is past due. The debt ceiling merely allows us to pay it. The Repubs made a lot of hay conflating the two. And listening to them, a lot of them didn't even actually understand the simple premise I just laid out in one sentence.

kvrdave
08-24-11, 03:08 PM
That would indicate that deficits are getting smaller. If they were, people would not see a problem. Or at least not to the extent they see it ballooning.

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 03:10 PM
A agree that the debt ceiling debate was unnecessary hullabalooo and should have been a clean bill passed months earlier.

CRM114
08-24-11, 03:10 PM
It's a separate issue. Personally, you have bills that are due for goods you've already consumed and you have a projection of future wants and needs. Because you strive to reduces the future wants and needs does nothing to pay the bill for the goods consumed.

Venusian
08-24-11, 03:48 PM
It's a separate issue. Personally, you have bills that are due for goods you've already consumed and you have a projection of future wants and needs. Because you strive to reduces the future wants and needs does nothing to pay the bill for the goods consumed.

If the current budget didn't have a deficit, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling. It's pretty simple.


I don't get this trap. The GOP offered to raise the ceiling with no conditions and its a trap? Isn't that what you said earlier always happens until Obama came to office (although he got a few raises in before this last debacle)?

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 04:03 PM
It was a trap, because the offer wasn't sincere. Every Republican voted against the "offer" so even if all Dems voted for it, it still wouldn't have passed. It was simply to get people on record.

Venusian
08-24-11, 04:14 PM
It was a trap, because the offer wasn't sincere. Every Republican voted against the "offer" so even if all Dems voted for it, it still wouldn't have passed. It was simply to get people on record.

Okay. But then wouldn't the Democrats have the leverage to say that they tried but the GOP voted it down? I feel like that would be more leverage with the public than keep voting against GOP proposals with or without conditions

Th0r S1mpson
08-24-11, 04:30 PM
Yes.

But they are blaming the Tea Party any way. Some people (including some members here) are buying that.

Jason
08-24-11, 06:01 PM
Yes.

But they are blaming the Tea Party any way. Some people (including some members here) are buying that.

I don't blame the tea party, mainly because I think they're a bunch of brainless bozos incapable of actually accomplishing anything.

Navinabob
08-24-11, 06:50 PM
I don't blame the tea party, mainly because I think they're a bunch of brainless bozos incapable of actually accomplishing anything.

I dunno. They managed to fracture the republican party and pushed away any republican candidates who might have appealed to democrat voters unhappy with Obama. Plus, they gave all sorts of comedic fodder to late-night talk show hosts.

shadowhawk2020
08-24-11, 07:51 PM
If the current budget didn't have a deficit, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling. It's pretty simple.


I don't get this trap. The GOP offered to raise the ceiling with no conditions and its a trap? Isn't that what you said earlier always happens until Obama came to office (although he got a few raises in before this last debacle)?

But the current budget, that was voted on by these same members of congress, does have a deficit. They have already agreed to spend the money, but when it comes time to actually pay the bill they want out ;)

shadowhawk2020
08-24-11, 07:53 PM
I dunno. They managed to fracture the republican party and pushed away any republican candidates who might have appealed to democrat voters unhappy with Obama. Plus, they gave all sorts of comedic fodder to late-night talk show hosts.

I don't like the tea party either, but to their credit they did change the discussion to the debt talk. Now it is all anyone can talk about.

Jason
08-24-11, 08:01 PM
I don't like the tea party either, but to their credit they did change the discussion to the debt talk. Now it is all anyone can talk about.

Eh, I think a lot of republican politicians started catering to them because they thought they could use the national debt as another carrot-and-stick issue (like abortion, gun control and gay marriage) to keep a motivated group of voters supporting them. When they found out these people mean business, they pushed too hard and broke the government. Which is pretty much what the tea party really wanted in the first place.

kvrdave
08-24-11, 09:32 PM
But the current budget, that was voted on by these same members of congress, does have a deficit. They have already agreed to spend the money, but when it comes time to actually pay the bill they want out ;)

This is what I don't understand about the whole thing. Why wouldn't you pass a budget and the debt ceiling it needs at the same time?

Fuck 'em all. I pick on the Obama lovers because they are so testy at the moment. But fuck 'em all.

TheBigDave
08-25-11, 12:15 AM
Ron Paul pulls within 1 point of Obama.

Obama 39%, Paul 38%

The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided.

Just a month ago, Obama posted a 41% to 37% lead over Paul, who ran second to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the recent high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.

Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38

kvrdave
08-25-11, 12:34 AM
78% of Democrats would take another bite of this shit sandwich? :lol:

Paul would be interesting. He would piss off both parties fairly equally. He'd stay out of war which would piss off current Democrats and past Republicans. His fiscal policies would likely piss them both off as well.

Ideally he would simply do no harm. It's been awhile since we had that in office. That might also appeal to voters on both sides.

classicman2
08-25-11, 08:59 AM
Oh, President Paul (not the apostle) would a lot of harm. Absolutely nothing would get done. ;)

JasonF
08-25-11, 09:59 AM
Oh, President Paul (not the apostle)

Link?

Sean O'Hara
08-25-11, 10:11 AM
Oh, President Paul (not the apostle) would a lot of harm. Absolutely nothing would get done. ;)

Those two sentences are contradictory.

clappj
08-25-11, 10:39 AM
Those two sentences are contradictory.

The first one isn't even a real sentence. ;)

PopcornTreeCt
08-25-11, 12:04 PM
78% of Democrats would take another bite of this shit sandwich? :lol:

Paul would be interesting. He would piss off both parties fairly equally. He'd stay out of war which would piss off current Democrats and past Republicans. His fiscal policies would likely piss them both off as well.

Ideally he would simply do no harm. It's been awhile since we had that in office. That might also appeal to voters on both sides.

I'm voting for Obama if Perry becomes the nominee. As for Paul, yes definitely would be interesting.

CRM114
08-25-11, 12:07 PM
Okay. But then wouldn't the Democrats have the leverage to say that they tried but the GOP voted it down? I feel like that would be more leverage with the public than keep voting against GOP proposals with or without conditions

As witnessed during the debate, the majority of people simply don't understand what the debt ceiling is. Even Congress people misstated it's actual purpose - perhaps out of ignorance themselves or playing off other people's ignorance.

Groucho
08-25-11, 12:16 PM
Ron Paul's dead as soon as the media gets decides to make a big deal of those newsletters again. Right now they aren't giving him any coverage at all, which might be better.

dork
08-25-11, 12:20 PM
Ron Paul's dead
You just made 90% of the Internet shit its pants.

Th0r S1mpson
08-25-11, 12:50 PM
What newsletters?

Groucho
08-25-11, 01:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy

JasonF
08-25-11, 01:12 PM
What newsletters?

Short version: Ron Paul used to publish a newsletter that purported to be his own views and was full of racist, bigoted, conspiracy theories. Paul's defense is that the newsletters were ghost-written and that he basically lent his name to them but had nothing to do with the content, though he concedes he bears some responsibility for letting them go out under his name.

Josh-da-man
08-25-11, 08:26 PM
Short version: Ron Paul used to publish a newsletter that purported to be his own views and was full of racist, bigoted, conspiracy theories. Paul's defense is that the newsletters were ghost-written and that he basically lent his name to them but had nothing to do with the content, though he concedes he bears some responsibility for letting them go out under his name.

...and Paul is full of shit.

Does anyone think that he would have let newsletters bearing his name go out if they filled with Marxist propaganda or pro-gun control opinions? The bottom line is that these are the kind of people he associated (associates?) with and he shouldn't try get away with it by playing dumb.

He's either a racist asshole or a complete dumbfuck.

shadowhawk2020
08-25-11, 09:01 PM
Can't he be both? :)

kvrdave
08-26-11, 12:29 AM
The bottom line is that these are the kind of people he associated (associates?) with and he shouldn't try get away with it by playing dumb.


Worked for Obama with Bill Ayers. Never bothered Robert Byrd much either.

I don't know a lot about Ron Paul, but he seems "over the top" libertarian. Ayn Rand kind of libertarian. I don't see how racism would even fit in that mentality, but I could be very wrong.

But I'm sure it will get dug up and anal probed if he looks like a contender. And given the nature of it, it will certainly be used for calls of racism because he would be running against Obama. But to be fair, the calls of racism will be used even if Herman Cain were to get the nomination.

Artman
08-26-11, 12:43 AM
Never bothered Robert Byrd much either.


Barbaric!! lol...

Navinabob
08-26-11, 12:56 AM
But to be fair, the calls of racism will be used even if Herman Cain were to get the nomination.

That is because I think he might be a racist.

kvrdave
08-26-11, 01:16 AM
That is because I think he might be a racist.

You think Herman Cain is racist? At any rate, the point is that Martin Luther King Jr. could be the Republican nominee and there would be a charge of racism. It is what the Democrat machine knows.

CRM114
08-26-11, 08:56 AM
I don't know a lot about Ron Paul, but he seems "over the top" libertarian. Ayn Rand kind of libertarian. I don't see how racism would even fit in that mentality, but I could be very wrong.

Anti-affirmative action. Anti any government program that might level the playing field economically. Anti any government program targeting specific groups of people. Pull your own damned bootstraps, people, even if you don't have any boots or any prospect of getting any boots.

CRM114
08-26-11, 09:02 AM
You think Herman Cain is racist? At any rate, the point is that Martin Luther King Jr. could be the Republican nominee and there would be a charge of racism. It is what the Democrat machine knows.

MLK a Republican. That is beyond funny.

classicman2
08-26-11, 09:12 AM
It depends on your definition of racism. I believe one can be opposed to affirmative action and not be a racist.

Red Dog
08-26-11, 09:56 AM
No no. Clarence Thomas is a racist. Apparently if you want everyone treated the same fucking way by government, you must be a racist. -rolleyes-

I found Ron Paul's 'explanation' of the newsletters when they came up early in 2008 to be sorely lacking, and that's why I did not vote for him in the GOP primary (that and how he seems to embrace the lunatics and racists on the fringe).

But Ron Paul is for the single biggest thing that would help black people.....ending the War on Drugs. Too bad the party that supposedly represents the best interests of blacks doesn't feel that way.


You think Herman Cain is racist?

Against black people? No. He's certainly a bigot at the very least.

CRM114
08-26-11, 11:29 AM
No no. Clarence Thomas is a racist. Apparently if you want everyone treated the same fucking way by government, you must be a racist. -rolleyes-

No, no. It's the "elites" who are the problem!

All the Law School cares about is its own image among know-it-all elites.

If our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories.

America’s elites were arrogantly wreaking havoc on everything my grandparents had worked for and all I’d accomplished in forty-three years of struggle.

I have a hard time thinking about a more elite position in the world than Supreme Court Justice. It's pretty scary that Thomas thinks he spoeaks for all blacks and his successes naturally are available to all. I should be living in a 125ft yacht since I'm white! -rolleyes-


Too bad the party that supposedly represents the best interests of blacks doesn't feel that way.

It took Democrats to pass something like the Fair Sentencing Act.

Th0r S1mpson
08-26-11, 11:35 AM
Look, it's time we settled this. Who is more favorable, Republican black people, or Democrat black people?

To make the final ruling, I hereby appoint the esteemed Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Sean O'Hara
08-26-11, 01:33 PM
It took Democrats to pass something like the Fair Sentencing Act.

That would be the one co-sponsored by Jeff Sessions that passed the Senate by unanimous consent? (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1789) The one substantially similar to bills previously proposed by Sessions and Hatch?

CRM114
08-26-11, 01:50 PM
Like I said, it took Democrats to PASS something like the Fair Sentencing Act. You know, the House, Senate, and the President.

Sean O'Hara
08-26-11, 02:12 PM
Like I said, it took Democrats to PASS something like the Fair Sentencing Act. You know, the House, Senate, and the President.

Your larger point was that the Republicans don't care about black people, with this piece of legislation as a specific illustration of that point. The fact that Republicans helped pass it does, kinda, just a little, maybe possibly, undermine that argument, don't you think?

focker
08-26-11, 02:26 PM
So opposing affirmative action and other special treatment based on race, sexual orientation, etc. makes you a racist? I guess I'm a racist. Who knew?! :lol:

Th0r S1mpson
08-26-11, 03:09 PM
I guess I'm a racist. Who knew?! :lol:

I did. :wave:

JasonF
08-26-11, 05:28 PM
So opposing affirmative action and other special treatment based on race, sexual orientation, etc. makes you a racist? I guess I'm a racist. Who knew?! :lol:

I don't think opposing affirmative action makes you a racist, but I think a lot of people who oppose couch their opposition in very racist language.

By the way, the problem with Paul's newsletter isn't that the newsletter opposed affirmative action. The problem is that it said things like black rioters in Los Angeles were barbarians who only stopped rioting when it came time to pick up their welfare checks, that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be", that Martin Luther King Day is "hate Whitey day,"and that carjacking is the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

Navinabob
08-26-11, 06:47 PM
You think Herman Cain is racist? At any rate, the point is that Martin Luther King Jr. could be the Republican nominee and there would be a charge of racism. It is what the Democrat machine knows.

I thought it over and I take back my comment. Cain's anti-Muslim stance and rhetoric actually makes him a religious-sectarianist or, more commonly called, a douche-bag.

DeputyDave
08-26-11, 07:47 PM
I thought it over and I take back my comment. Cain's anti-Muslim stance and rhetoric actually makes him a religious-sectarianist or, more commonly called, a douche-bag.

So what does that make the many anti-Christians here? I've heard some pretty hateful shit.

Navinabob
08-26-11, 08:10 PM
So what does that make the many anti-Christians here? I've heard some pretty hateful shit.

People I wouldn't want to represent me in public office, who are paid to dictate policy that that covers Americans that follow under that religion, nationality, gender, sexuality or race.

I have no problem if someone says they hate Mexicans, or women, or Catholics. Everyone has a right to their own ignorance. But if that person is in charge of protecting and serving those American citizens that just happen to fall under whatever category that person hates or does not trust... I do not want to see them have the job.

Does that distinction make sense?

kvrdave
08-27-11, 12:04 AM
It took Democrats to pass something like the Fair Sentencing Act.

It took Republicans to end slavery, so fuck you, we win. Why do you love slavery so much?

kvrdave
08-27-11, 12:15 AM
By the way, the problem with Paul's newsletter isn't that the newsletter opposed affirmative action. The problem is that it said things like... that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,"

I didn't fix your post, but edited it to the point I wanted to make. I haven't looked into the newsletter things much. Hadn't heard about it before a day or two ago, but the bolded part makes me cautious. If I knew that 70% if women vote for Democrats (just using a random number), I could see saying in a newsletter format some snarky comment that only about 30% of women have sensible political opinions. It's a snarky comment. And I believe the Black vote tends to be about 95% Democrat, so that appears on the surface to be where that type of comment comes from.

Here's my surface level problem....when I see things like this taken by the opposition, which seem to be a pretty obvious snarky comment rather than some racist comment (especially when it wasn't even written by him directly), I worry about at how all the other things are represented.

He could be David Duke for all I know (and I don't really know much about him either :lol: ) but a comment that essentially says "those that vote for Democrats don't have a sensible political opinion" just seems like a snarky comment. Am I seeing that way off base? Or do you at least see my point?

JasonF
08-27-11, 01:08 AM
I see your point, and if that were the only marginal statement in the newsletter, I'd think it was pretty weak evidence of any sort of racism. But it paints a different picture when you add it up with all the other things that have been reported in the newsletters (and I just cut and pasted from wikipedia, so who knows how many other questionable things were in the newspapers and didn't make the wiki article).

PatD
08-27-11, 01:19 AM
In other news:

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-signs-pledge-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-161046437.html;_ylt=Ag1UN6V6i3pYGst9EzwLGems0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNyN2Jkam40BGNjb2RlA3dlaWdodGVkY3QuYwRwa2 cDMzlkNTJlZDctMjcxMy0zODczLTlkZTQtMTUyMDFhZmM5MTJiBHBvcwM1BHNlYwNtb3N0X3BvcHVsYXIEdmVyAzcyOTk2MjIwLW QwMGEtMTFlMC1iZjdmLTM1MjE2OGUzYzAyYQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ ylv=3

Our 45th President is wooing The Heartland big time here. Picking on "teh gheyz" is like a box of chocolates and a dozen roses to "The Real America".

kvrdave
08-27-11, 01:25 AM
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RKBlk1Vpeuw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is interesting. Some of what he says seems weak, but he has great points about how he gets more Black votes than other Republicans, how he would pardon all non violent drug convictions, which greatly favors blacks, and even Wolf Blitzer saying he was surprised because he has known him for so long and none of these things sound like anything he would associate with Paul. Paul also makes a great point about when there is an accusation about something like this, there is at least one video or audio clip to make some claim, but in all his years of public service, he has never said anything that would back up the statements in the newsletters.

I can agree that it obviously looks like bad judgement to have had a newsletter use his name without heavy oversight by him, but even he admits that.

Racism is probably the furthest thing from my mind. I don't understand it, and I don't see it. Probably when it actually happens I tend not to see it because it simply doesn't occur to me. So I would really hate the very idea of supporting someone who is a racist. But Paul seems to at least say the right things (at least from a position consistant with Libertariansism), and it seems like a bad idea for me to readily convict a guy based on some newsletters when we have decades of him on video and audio to actually judge him by.

dork
08-27-11, 01:39 AM
and I just cut and pasted from wikipedia, so who knows how many other questionable things were in the newspapers and didn't make the wiki article

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial
politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Blacks have "civil rights," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be
the major problem of the 1990s.

focker
08-27-11, 03:49 AM
I did. :wave:

Shut it, cracka.

Red Dog
08-27-11, 08:59 AM
So what does that make the many anti-Christians here? I've heard some pretty hateful shit.

Are they anti-Christian or generally anti-religion? Seems to me the latter. Regardless, the people I think you are speaking of aren't like Cain....having a selective view of freedom of religion. I don't think they would automatically disqualify a Christian from working for them as Cain would a Muslim. Plus as stated up above, there's a world of difference between some random dude posting on a message board and someone trying to be President.

Josh-da-man
08-27-11, 11:04 PM
Are they anti-Christian or generally anti-religion? Seems to me the latter.

I'd say it's more anti-religion as politics.

Most people (myself included) who don't subscribe to any religion don't appreciate people who believe they are entitled to have the law enforce their religious beliefs.

You are entitled to believe in any deity you want to and apply said deity's rules to your own life, but you don't get to force your religion onto me or anyone else by the rule of law.

Bandoman
08-28-11, 12:24 PM
http://i.imgur.com/eJpfB.jpg

hahn
08-28-11, 12:37 PM
So what does that make the many anti-Christians here? I've heard some pretty hateful shit.I don't dislike all Christians, just the ones that seem to think that freedom of religion means that laws should enforce their beliefs since they are in the majority. My opinions would also apply to Muslims if Islam were the dominant religion in this country. But it's not, so that's why the rants are against Christians. But it's not because we give a crap what you believe as a Christian.

Superboy
08-28-11, 12:59 PM
So what does that make the many anti-Christians here? I've heard some pretty hateful shit.

If a large, wealthy, powerful, and influential group made it their personal mission in life to make sure that American children bowed down to Xenu every morning in school and were regularly audited for thetans, you'd swiftly change your opinion of organized religion, wouldn't you?

Superboy
08-28-11, 01:01 PM
http://i.imgur.com/eJpfB.jpg

:lol: you might as well make that your sig.

DeputyDave
08-28-11, 01:26 PM
If a large, wealthy, powerful, and influential group made it their personal mission in life to make sure that American children bowed down to Xenu every morning in school and were regularly audited for thetans, you'd swiftly change your opinion of organized religion, wouldn't you?

But that is not going to happen in this country; with Christianity or any other religion. Call me selfish, but as an atheist I simply don't see the religious right affecting my life in any meaningful way. I have never been forced to pray (well, since my mother stopped making me go to church at age 10). I am pro choice and pro most gay issues but abortion is legal (and that is not likely to change) and I think the institution of marriage is a joke (any issues gays have in my mind would be fixed with a comprehensive domestic partnership law that pertains to ALL couples and would pass). Christians have never threatened me or tried to kill me or my family (and I can't say that about all religions).

On the issues that matter, the ones that do affect me, I feel the conservatives are on the right side of things (or at least more right than the liberals) and will cause less real damage to the country. If in some imaginary future the US starts to look like it is becoming a Christian theocracy I will fight that fight then.

Superboy
08-28-11, 01:35 PM
You don't see them affecting your life in any meaningful way because you're not the target of their campaign. And while the religious right is certainly not always successful, their never-ending crusade is extremely annoying for everyone that is attempting to push it back. They can't just leave well enough alone and leave other people alone; no, they have to constantly, and I mean constantly, attempt to convert everyone to their cause.

And what do you mean by "real" damage? like property damage only?

JumpCutz
08-28-11, 01:37 PM
http://i.imgur.com/eJpfB.jpg

rotfl :lol: Perfect

Superboy
08-28-11, 01:41 PM
One question: if he's white, why does he talk like a Chinese man?

DeputyDave
08-28-11, 01:53 PM
You don't see them affecting your life in any meaningful way because you're not the target of their campaign. And while the religious right is certainly not always successful, their never-ending crusade is extremely annoying for everyone that is attempting to push it back. They can't just leave well enough alone and leave other people alone; no, they have to constantly, and I mean constantly, attempt to convert everyone to their cause.

And what do you mean by "real" damage? like property damage only?

I did say I was selfish didn't I? But seriously, how are they affecting people in any meaningful way? There are plenty of laws in place to stop any real harm. Protesting at abortion clinics? There are protests for every silly thing everyday in this country and abortion is not about to become illegal any time soon. Blocking mosques from being built in certain areas? Fuck 'em, one silly religion picking on an even sillier one. Allowing people to pray in school? How does someone praying bother anyone else? Blocking gay marriage? I have posted my solution to that many times.

What I mean by “real” damage is not the butt hurt feelings of some hand wringing whiners but real damage to the foundations of our country. Fiscally, domestic policy wise, and foreign policy wise (the things that really mater) I tend to side with the conservatives over the liberals.

I’m not here to argue with people over why I think that the conservatives are more correct, there is nothing I can ever say to convince someone who believes the opposite so it seems pretty pointless. If you want to know how I can reconcile my views on religion and other social issues to my voting Republican this time around I’d be happy to do that.

Red Dog
08-28-11, 02:20 PM
The problem is that most so-called conservative politicians lose their fiscal conservatism when they get elected, so all that's left is their social conservatism. Bleh. I have little doubt that this would be the case should we be stuck with a Perry in the WH. Then that doesn't even take into their foreign policy approach which usually runs counter to mine.

DeputyDave
08-28-11, 02:30 PM
The problem is that most so-called conservative politicians lose their fiscal conservatism when they get elected, so all that's left is their social conservatism. Bleh. I have little doubt that this would be the case should we be stuck with a Perry in the WH. Then that doesn't even take into their foreign policy approach which usually runs counter to mine.I agree, but at least there is a small chance rather than no chance at all. The reason I have some respect for the Tea Party is because I feel (if a Republican makes the WH) there will be more pressure than usual to be fiscally responsible. At his core a politician's first instinct is towards reelection. I'm not worried about some of the Tea Party's more crazy "fringe" ideas being implemented, but hopefully it's fiscally conservative roots will skew things the right way.

Red Dog
08-28-11, 02:33 PM
I used to think that: small chance. But they fooled me enough times that I know better now. There is absolutely positively no way I would vote for a Perry because I know he is full of shit. It's the same reason why I couldn't vote for Obama: I knew he was full of shit when it came to Change.

DeputyDave
08-28-11, 02:35 PM
I used to think that: small chance. But they fooled me enough times that I know better now. There is absolutely positively no way I would vote for a Perry because I know he is full of shit. It's the same reason why I couldn't vote for Obama: I knew he was full of shit when it came to Change.

See, I suspect Perry is full of shit. I know what Obama is.

movielib
08-28-11, 04:32 PM
I did say I was selfish didn't I? But seriously, how are they affecting people in any meaningful way? There are plenty of laws in place to stop any real harm. Protesting at abortion clinics? There are protests for every silly thing everyday in this country and abortion is not about to become illegal any time soon. Blocking mosques from being built in certain areas? Fuck 'em, one silly religion picking on an even sillier one. Allowing people to pray in school? How does someone praying bother anyone else? Blocking gay marriage? I have posted my solution to that many times.

What I mean by “real” damage is not the butt hurt feelings of some hand wringing whiners but real damage to the foundations of our country. Fiscally, domestic policy wise, and foreign policy wise (the things that really mater) I tend to side with the conservatives over the liberals.

I’m not here to argue with people over why I think that the conservatives are more correct, there is nothing I can ever say to convince someone who believes the opposite so it seems pretty pointless. If you want to know how I can reconcile my views on religion and other social issues to my voting Republican this time around I’d be happy to do that.
I thought I'd never get to this point but I have to pretty much agree with you (aside from maybe foreign policy). As much as I detest social conservatism, I think economic liberalism is much more harmful.

In my own state I have seen Governor Walker and the Republicans transform the state for the good, economically and Second Amendment-wise in about half a year. I have not seen them do damage socially although I disagree with just about everything they stand for on those matters.

movielib
08-28-11, 04:41 PM
The problem is that most so-called conservative politicians lose their fiscal conservatism when they get elected, so all that's left is their social conservatism. Bleh. I have little doubt that this would be the case should we be stuck with a Perry in the WH. Then that doesn't even take into their foreign policy approach which usually runs counter to mine.
So it's good that Obama got us out of the wars and has a noninterventionist foreign policy. ;)

It's kind of funny that you came to libertarianism from conservatism and I got there from liberalism and now I'm more willing to back a conservative than you are. :)

DeputyDave
08-28-11, 05:30 PM
So it's good that Obama got us out of the wars and has a noninterventionist foreign policy. ;)

It's kind of funny that you came to libertarianism from conservatism and I got there from liberalism and now I'm more willing to back a conservative than you are. :)

:) My own journey: Liberal-> Conservative-> Libertarian -> Realist.

Red Dog
08-28-11, 06:26 PM
So it's good that Obama got us out of the wars and has a noninterventionist foreign policy. ;)

It's kind of funny that you came to libertarianism from conservatism and I got there from liberalism and now I'm more willing to back a conservative than you are. :)

You obviously didn't see my subsequent post. ;)

I don't think it's too funny....like I said - I was fooled many times, hence some bitterness. It's pretty simple for me: Democrats usually are honest about fucking me, so I can respect their honesty. Republicans continually try to fool me.

Josh-da-man
08-28-11, 07:30 PM
The problem is that most so-called conservative politicians lose their fiscal conservatism when they get elected, so all that's left is their social conservatism. Bleh. I have little doubt that this would be the case should we be stuck with a Perry in the WH.

You could probably look to what Sam Brownback is doing in Kansas.

As soon as Mr Small Government took over the governor's office, he zeroed in on... regulating the abortion industry. Which is strange, because ever since his fellow pro-life traveler shot Dr Tiller in the face a couple of years ago I don't know if one can even acquire an abortion in Kansas these days.

And he's also asking the federal government for several million dollars to "strengthen marriages." (http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/16/1975954/kansas-to-seek-federal-grant-to.html#storylink=misearch)

wendersfan
08-29-11, 12:30 PM
I thought I'd never get to this point but I have to pretty much agree with you (aside from maybe foreign policy). As much as I detest social conservatism, I think economic liberalism is much more harmful.And I've gotten to the point where I care very little about economic issues and care almost solely about social issues.

Different strokes.

Th0r S1mpson
08-29-11, 12:46 PM
And I've gotten to the point where I care very little about economic issues and care almost solely about social issues.

Unfortunately, the two often go hand in hand. When they do not, you end up where California is... having to shut down important social services that were promised but could not afford.

Navinabob
08-29-11, 03:54 PM
I did say I was selfish didn't I? But seriously, how are they affecting people in any meaningful way? There are plenty of laws in place to stop any real harm. Protesting at abortion clinics? There are protests for every silly thing everyday in this country and abortion is not about to become illegal any time soon. Blocking mosques from being built in certain areas? Fuck 'em, one silly religion picking on an even sillier one. Allowing people to pray in school? How does someone praying bother anyone else? Blocking gay marriage? I have posted my solution to that many times.

What I mean by “real” damage is not the butt hurt feelings of some hand wringing whiners but real damage to the foundations of our country. Fiscally, domestic policy wise, and foreign policy wise (the things that really mater) I tend to side with the conservatives over the liberals.

I’m not here to argue with people over why I think that the conservatives are more correct, there is nothing I can ever say to convince someone who believes the opposite so it seems pretty pointless. If you want to know how I can reconcile my views on religion and other social issues to my voting Republican this time around I’d be happy to do that.

This is the sort of crap I fear.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare

The Evangelicals Engaged In Spiritual Warfare

An emerging Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and the return of Jesus, is becoming more of a presence in American politics. The leaders are considered apostles and prophets, gifted by God for this role.

The international "apostolic and prophetic" movement has been dubbed by its leading American architect, C. Peter Wagner, as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Although the movement is larger than the network organized by Wagner — and not all members describe themselves as part of Wagner's NAR — the so-called apostles and prophets of the movement have identifiable ideology that separates them from other evangelicals.

Two ministries in the movement planned and orchestrated Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent prayer rally, where apostles and prophets from around the nation spoke or appeared onstage. The event was patterned after The Call, held at locations around the globe and led by Lou Engle, who has served in the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders of the NAR. Other NAR apostles endorsed Perry's event, including two who lead a 50-state "prayer warrior" network. Thomas Muthee, the Kenyan pastor who anointed Sarah Palin at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church in 2005, while praying for Jesus to protect her from the spirit of witchcraft, is also part of this movement.

On Wednesday's Fresh Air, Rachel Tabachnick, who researches the political impact of the religious right, joins Terry Gross for a discussion about the growing movement and its influence and connections in the political world.

Tabachnick says the movement currently works with a variety of politicians and has a presence in all 50 states. It also has very strong opinions about the direction it wants the country to take. For the past several years, she says, the NAR has run a campaign to reclaim what it calls the "seven mountains of culture" from demonic influence. The "mountains" are arts and entertainment; business; family; government; media; religion; and education.

"They teach quite literally that these 'mountains' have fallen under the control of demonic influences in society," says Tabachnick. "And therefore, they must reclaim them for God in order to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth. ... The apostles teach what's called 'strategic level spiritual warfare' reason why there is sin and corruption and poverty on the Earth is because the Earth is controlled by a hierarchy of demons under the authority of Satan. So they teach not just evangelizing souls one by one, as we're accustomed to hearing about. They teach that they will go into a geographic region or a people group and conduct spiritual-warfare activities in order to remove the demons from the entire population. This is what they're doing that's quite fundamentally different than other evangelical groups."

[B]The organizers of Perry's rally were from ministries founded by two apostles/prophets of the movement — The Call, and the International House of Prayer founded by Mike Bickle. Bickle, who led part of Perry's event, has claimed that Oprah Winfrey is a precursor of the Antichrist, and Engle has claimed that gay people are controlled by "demonic spirits." Both have served on the Council of Prophetic Elders initiated by Wagner.

"Lou Engle [has spoken] at length about how one of his sons has started an International House of Prayer in the Castro district of San Francisco and that his son is now expelling demons from homosexuals, and supposedly then this cures them of their homosexuality," says Tabachnick. "He has also held [prayer rallies] around the world."

One of Engle's previous rallies took place in Uganda in May 2010, shortly after an anti-homosexuality bill had been proposed.

"Various people got on the stage [at his rally] and promoted the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda, which is a very draconian bill that would allow for executions for certain offenses, and would also allow for people who don't report homosexual history to be jailed," she says. "The apostles have had a long history in Uganda, and some of them have had close relationships with both political and religious leaders there. In fact, an apostle in Uganda takes credit for promoting the anti-homosexuality bill and was recognized by the parliament in Uganda when the bill was introduced."

Engle has another rally planned in November in Detroit. The purpose of the prayer rally, says Tabachnick, is to "fight the demonic spirit of Islam."

"In other words, [they want] to conduct spiritual warfare against the spiritual demons which they claim hold Muslims in bondage and keep them from converting," she says. "Of course, this is expressed in terms of love. They say 'We don't hate Muslims. We love Muslims. But we hate that they are in spiritual bondage and don't convert to Christianity.' "

A 'Different' Evangelicalism

Tabachnick, who has been researching and writing about the apostles for a decade, says her own religious background has helped her with her research. She grew up as a Southern Baptist and converted to Judaism as an adult.

"Having the Southern Baptist background and growing up in the Deep South has helped me to be able to do this research and has also helped me realize something that might not be apparent to some other people looking at the movement," she says. "This is quite radically different than the evangelicalism of my youth. The things that we've been talking about are not representative of evangelicalism. They're not representative of conservative evangelicalism. So I think that's important to keep in mind. This is a movement that's growing in popularity, and one of the ways they've been able to do that [is because] they're not very identifiable to most people. They're just presented as nondenominational or just Christian — but it is an identifiable movement now with an identifiable ideology."

On the issues of the international "apostolic and prophetic" movement:

"[Their issues are] anti-abortion, anti-gay rights — but they also have ... the belief that government should not be involved in social safety nets, that the country is becoming socialist, if not communist ... — all of what we've come to call 'Tea Party issues' of very small government. In the case of the apostles, they believe this because they believe that a large government that handles the safety net is taking away what is the domain of the church and of Christianity."

On dominionism:

"Dominionism is simply that Christians of this belief system must take control over the various institutions of society and government. Some things that make this group unique is that they have some unusual concepts of what they call spiritual warfare that have not been seen before in other groups. Spiritual warfare is a common term in evangelicalism and in Christianity, but they have some unique approaches and some unique spins on this that distinguish them from other groups."

On Thomas Muthee's video series:

"The process [in these videos] is that the people come together, repent, pray together, expel the demons from their community — which they describe in terms of witches and witchcraft — and then the community undergoes a transformation in which there can be miraculous healing, the growth of very large vegetables [and] the end of corruption and crime. What was totally missed by the press was that Muthee was an international leader in the [NAR] movement at the time and recognized because of his role in this series of videos."

On the topics at Rick Perry's rally:

"The major topics at these events [are] anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and the conversion of Jews in order to advance the end times. And this was very visible at Perry's events as these apostles led all of these different prayers and repentance ceremonies at [his rally]."

DeputyDave
08-29-11, 04:57 PM
This is the sort of crap I fear.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare

The Evangelicals Engaged In Spiritual Warfare

An emerging Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and the return of Jesus, is becoming more of a presence in American politics. The leaders are considered apostles and prophets, gifted by God for this role.

The international "apostolic and prophetic" movement has been dubbed by its leading American architect, C. Peter Wagner, as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Although the movement is larger than the network organized by Wagner — and not all members describe themselves as part of Wagner's NAR — the so-called apostles and prophets of the movement have identifiable ideology that separates them from other evangelicals.

Two ministries in the movement planned and orchestrated Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent prayer rally, where apostles and prophets from around the nation spoke or appeared onstage. The event was patterned after The Call, held at locations around the globe and led by Lou Engle, who has served in the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders of the NAR. Other NAR apostles endorsed Perry's event, including two who lead a 50-state "prayer warrior" network. Thomas Muthee, the Kenyan pastor who anointed Sarah Palin at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church in 2005, while praying for Jesus to protect her from the spirit of witchcraft, is also part of this movement.

On Wednesday's Fresh Air, Rachel Tabachnick, who researches the political impact of the religious right, joins Terry Gross for a discussion about the growing movement and its influence and connections in the political world.

Tabachnick says the movement currently works with a variety of politicians and has a presence in all 50 states. It also has very strong opinions about the direction it wants the country to take. For the past several years, she says, the NAR has run a campaign to reclaim what it calls the "seven mountains of culture" from demonic influence. The "mountains" are arts and entertainment; business; family; government; media; religion; and education.

"They teach quite literally that these 'mountains' have fallen under the control of demonic influences in society," says Tabachnick. "And therefore, they must reclaim them for God in order to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth. ... The apostles teach what's called 'strategic level spiritual warfare' reason why there is sin and corruption and poverty on the Earth is because the Earth is controlled by a hierarchy of demons under the authority of Satan. So they teach not just evangelizing souls one by one, as we're accustomed to hearing about. They teach that they will go into a geographic region or a people group and conduct spiritual-warfare activities in order to remove the demons from the entire population. This is what they're doing that's quite fundamentally different than other evangelical groups."

[B]The organizers of Perry's rally were from ministries founded by two apostles/prophets of the movement — The Call, and the International House of Prayer founded by Mike Bickle. Bickle, who led part of Perry's event, has claimed that Oprah Winfrey is a precursor of the Antichrist, and Engle has claimed that gay people are controlled by "demonic spirits." Both have served on the Council of Prophetic Elders initiated by Wagner.

"Lou Engle [has spoken] at length about how one of his sons has started an International House of Prayer in the Castro district of San Francisco and that his son is now expelling demons from homosexuals, and supposedly then this cures them of their homosexuality," says Tabachnick. "He has also held [prayer rallies] around the world."

One of Engle's previous rallies took place in Uganda in May 2010, shortly after an anti-homosexuality bill had been proposed.

"Various people got on the stage [at his rally] and promoted the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda, which is a very draconian bill that would allow for executions for certain offenses, and would also allow for people who don't report homosexual history to be jailed," she says. "The apostles have had a long history in Uganda, and some of them have had close relationships with both political and religious leaders there. In fact, an apostle in Uganda takes credit for promoting the anti-homosexuality bill and was recognized by the parliament in Uganda when the bill was introduced."

Engle has another rally planned in November in Detroit. The purpose of the prayer rally, says Tabachnick, is to "fight the demonic spirit of Islam."

"In other words, [they want] to conduct spiritual warfare against the spiritual demons which they claim hold Muslims in bondage and keep them from converting," she says. "Of course, this is expressed in terms of love. They say 'We don't hate Muslims. We love Muslims. But we hate that they are in spiritual bondage and don't convert to Christianity.' "

A 'Different' Evangelicalism

Tabachnick, who has been researching and writing about the apostles for a decade, says her own religious background has helped her with her research. She grew up as a Southern Baptist and converted to Judaism as an adult.

"Having the Southern Baptist background and growing up in the Deep South has helped me to be able to do this research and has also helped me realize something that might not be apparent to some other people looking at the movement," she says. "This is quite radically different than the evangelicalism of my youth. The things that we've been talking about are not representative of evangelicalism. They're not representative of conservative evangelicalism. So I think that's important to keep in mind. This is a movement that's growing in popularity, and one of the ways they've been able to do that [is because] they're not very identifiable to most people. They're just presented as nondenominational or just Christian — but it is an identifiable movement now with an identifiable ideology."

On the issues of the international "apostolic and prophetic" movement:

"[Their issues are] anti-abortion, anti-gay rights — but they also have ... the belief that government should not be involved in social safety nets, that the country is becoming socialist, if not communist ... — all of what we've come to call 'Tea Party issues' of very small government. In the case of the apostles, they believe this because they believe that a large government that handles the safety net is taking away what is the domain of the church and of Christianity."

On dominionism:

"Dominionism is simply that Christians of this belief system must take control over the various institutions of society and government. Some things that make this group unique is that they have some unusual concepts of what they call spiritual warfare that have not been seen before in other groups. Spiritual warfare is a common term in evangelicalism and in Christianity, but they have some unique approaches and some unique spins on this that distinguish them from other groups."

On Thomas Muthee's video series:

"The process [in these videos] is that the people come together, repent, pray together, expel the demons from their community — which they describe in terms of witches and witchcraft — and then the community undergoes a transformation in which there can be miraculous healing, the growth of very large vegetables [and] the end of corruption and crime. What was totally missed by the press was that Muthee was an international leader in the [NAR] movement at the time and recognized because of his role in this series of videos."

On the topics at Rick Perry's rally:

"The major topics at these events [are] anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and the conversion of Jews in order to advance the end times. And this was very visible at Perry's events as these apostles led all of these different prayers and repentance ceremonies at [his rally]."

I guess I'd be a bit worried too, if it had the least chance of happening. That article is pretty biased and makes it seem much more serious and imminent than it is. I seriously doubt that "the conversion of Jews in order to advance the end times" was a major topic at Perry's last rally. If it had been I think it would have made every paper by now.

I have no doubt there are some who think that way but I know we are in no danger from them. Just like I am sure there are groups of Muslim Americans who would love to see Sharia law followed in the US, it don’t mean it’s going to happen.

Sean O'Hara
08-29-11, 05:04 PM
I did say I was selfish didn't I? But seriously, how are they affecting people in any meaningful way? There are plenty of laws in place to stop any real harm. Protesting at abortion clinics? There are protests for every silly thing everyday in this country and abortion is not about to become illegal any time soon. Blocking mosques from being built in certain areas? Fuck 'em, one silly religion picking on an even sillier one.

All religions are silly. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the unpopular silly ones from being suppressed by the popular silly ones.

Allowing people to pray in school? How does someone praying bother anyone else?

Students are allowed to pray in school now. No one's stopping them, and if they tried they'd end up on the losing end of a lawsuit. The issue you're referring to is schools setting aside a block of time specifically for prayer, which is a horse of a different color entirely -- it creates a sense that prayer is the proper behavior and those who don't participate are being asocial.

Blocking gay marriage? I have posted my solution to that many times.

So you have, but what does that have to do with the fact that those who are doing the blocking are "affecting people in a meaningful way"?

Navinabob
08-29-11, 05:30 PM
I guess I'd be a bit worried too, if it had the least chance of happening. That article is pretty biased and makes it seem much more serious and imminent than it is. I seriously doubt that "the conversion of Jews in order to advance the end times" was a major topic at Perry's last rally. If it had been I think it would have made every paper by now.

I have no doubt there are some who think that way but I know we are in no danger from them. Just like I am sure there are groups of Muslim Americans who would love to see Sharia law followed in the US, it don’t mean it’s going to happen.

It made NPR and KQED News so far... internet blogs are eating up right now. I'm sure it'll get supported or tossed aside by bigger groups shortly. And while the odds that evolution will get tossed aside for Intelligent Design is slim (it is more likely the ridiculous notion of "teach both and let the kids decide" will probably come up again), it is disconcerting to know that our President supports such stupidity.

Look at what happens every time a President mentions they don't like particular vegetable and the media circus that goes along with it. What do you think happens when the most powerful man in the world says evolution is just a theory?

Jason
08-29-11, 05:34 PM
Students are allowed to pray in school now. No one's stopping them, and if they tried they'd end up on the losing end of a lawsuit.

The issue isn't allowing students to pray, it's just that certain groups want to make sure everybody else prays, and prays the way they do.

Th0r S1mpson
08-29-11, 05:39 PM
The issue isn't allowing students to pray, it's just that certain groups want to make sure everybody else prays, and prays the way they do.

Link?

(though I am in agreement that setting aside time in the school day for prayer is absurd)

Groucho
08-29-11, 05:44 PM
In Utah, we don't set aside time in public schools for prayer, we set it aside for whole religious classes. Mormons only. Really.

rw2516
08-29-11, 06:10 PM
I have no doubt there are some who think that way but I know we are in no danger from them.

I remember when Playboy was sold in drug stores, liquor stores, gas stations, most book stores and liquor stores. Then:


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3468303125.html

Jason
08-29-11, 06:23 PM
Link?

(though I am in agreement that setting aside time in the school day for prayer is absurd)

I'm basing my opinion on the groups who insist on having bible study on school grounds, and who complain about the lack of opportunities to evangelize or "witness" to students. They're not just wanting to do it themselves, they want to get everybody to agree with their philosophy.

sracer
08-29-11, 06:29 PM
The issue isn't allowing students to pray, it's just that certain groups want to make sure everybody else prays, and prays the way they do.

I'm basing my opinion on the groups who insist on having bible study on school grounds, and who complain about the lack of opportunities to evangelize or "witness" to students. They're not just wanting to do it themselves, they want to get everybody to agree with their philosophy.
Way to backpedal. Your previous statement wasn't framed as an opinion but as a matter of fact.

So now you talk about people complaining about a lack of opportunities to evangelize to students. Do you have a link for THAT or is that yet another one of your opinions masquerading as "fact"?

Th0r S1mpson
08-29-11, 06:31 PM
Opportunities to study and share viewpoints != Wanting to force others to follow practices

Ultimately, I assume they would like everyone to agree, since that how religious works. I personally think this could be an extracurricular activity.