Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

JonInMiddleGA 08-23-2010 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2337746)
The majority doesn't have the will to discriminate against the minority and deny them their rights.


The abstract notion of "rights" extends only so far as the will of the people allows.

Quote:

And there wouldn't be that majority if it hadn't been whipped up and turned into a political issue by right-wing bloggers (and I'm not even saying that out of my ass, it's been shown that it was right-wing bloggers keeping the story alive and pushing it to get it attention).

Thankfully, it's working. There's years of bullshit like permissiveness-as-a-"value" and other left-wing propaganda to overcome, it's not reasonable to expect positive change overnight nor for it to occur without effort.

Quote:

It's an idiotic non-issue.

To you & your liberal cronies perhaps. To most Americans however, it's clearly an issue.

Quote:

There's already (and has been for YEARS) a FUCKING MOSQUE CLOSER TO GROUND ZERO THAN THIS ONE. AND THAT ONE (AS FAR AS I KNOW) IS 100% A MOSQUE. I posted a fucking picture of it up the thread.
If people were really that upset they should be upset about that, and picketing there and all.

It takes time to educate the public on the mistakes that we've made. Whether allowing it to be built in the first place could be fairly debated I suppose, the fact that it still exists today however is just one example of a national lack of good judgment among too many to count.

I'm realistic, I don't expect all of those to be corrected overnight. I mean, that's a nice pipe dream & all, but it simply isn't realistic & I know that. One step at a time, that's the way progress will have to come.

cartman 08-23-2010 06:21 PM

Glad that you think people who are Americans, whose only connection with the foreigners that perpetrated the attacks was a book that they obviously interpreted in vastly different ways, suddenly ceased to be Americans in your eyes on 9/12/2001.

Quote:

The abstract notion of "rights" extends only so far as the will of the people allows.

The Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson are perfect examples of the will of the people being dead wrong, and eventually being corrected.

ISiddiqui 08-24-2010 12:02 AM

Well, I will agree with JIMG that rights extend only so far as the people want them to... which is why we must remain ever vigilant against their erosion (which was not JIMG's point, but it is what I take from it)

SirFozzie 08-24-2010 12:12 AM

Tensions Flare Over Proposed Mosque on Staten Island - NYTimes.com

Some of this shit is ridiculous:

“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

DaddyTorgo 08-24-2010 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2337977)
Tensions Flare Over Proposed Mosque on Staten Island - NYTimes.com

Some of this shit is ridiculous:

“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?


Lowest common denominator. A majority of Americans are uneducated or undereducated idiots. We don't see it as much here locally because of where we are, but it's true. There's a lot of stupid, bigoted people in this country.

Ronnie Dobbs2 08-24-2010 08:20 AM

Anyway, in real news, the court decision to put a hold on stem cell research is certainly disappointing.

DaddyTorgo 08-24-2010 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2338016)
Anyway, in real news, the court decision to put a hold on stem cell research is certainly disappointing.


Hugely.

But unlike some people I'm not going to advocate for getting rid of the Judiciary branch because of that.

Dutch 08-24-2010 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2338015)
There's a lot of stupid, bigoted people in this country.


Yes and many don't even know it.

Dutch 08-24-2010 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2338059)
Ah, the ole' "you're a bigot if you don't like bigots!"


I'm just saying that I've met a lot of "bigots" that would never vote for a Republican.

DaddyTorgo 08-24-2010 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2338068)
I'm just saying that I've met a lot of "bigots" that would never vote for a Republican.



Quote:

Originally Posted by merriam-webster.com defines bigot

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


I don't think you're using the word correctly. Particularly as it's used in the modern sense, rather than in the "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" more general definition. And even then I'd argue that never voting Republican doesn't make one intolerant at all. Certainly not by the dictionary definition of intolerant. And obstinance - well everyone will claim that the person that disagrees with them is being obstinant by the dictionary definition.

Never voting for a Republican doesn't make you obstinate or intolerant. Nice try though Dutch.

Dutch 08-24-2010 11:59 AM

Haha, you had to google "bigot". Stupid people...they are EVERYWHERE!!!

AENeuman 08-24-2010 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2337731)
I just get tired of letting him get away with his bullshit every so often and periodically call him on it.


Really? This type of banter is the main reason I keep coming back here. You and Jon (and many more) manage to be very entertaining as well as thoughtful. If I want reasonable and informative dialogue I'll listen to NPR.

FWIW my new pet peeve is posting "official" definitions to make a point. Language is as language does.

DaddyTorgo 08-24-2010 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2338087)
Haha, you had to google "bigot". Stupid people...they are EVERYWHERE!!!


I included so that there could be no argument about my definition of the word, not because I needed to look it up.

Greyroofoo 08-24-2010 12:55 PM

BREAKING NEWS EVERYBODY

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFP
Lady Gaga takes 'Twitter Queen' crown from Britney Spears

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Lady Gaga has dethroned Britney Spears as "Twitter Queen" with more than 5.7 million followers on the microblogging site and promised on Monday no online celebrity nonsense during her reign.

An "inaugural message" posted by the pop music diva at her official YouTube channel had been viewed 345,145 times by Monday afternoon.

"Thank you for beginning my reign as Twitter Queen," Lady Gaga said in video that showed her sitting at a make-up table backstage with a lacy crown atop her head and a glowing wand in one hand.

"I vow never to partake in online shenanigans and I vow to always tweet and tweet again."

Lady Gaga, whose birth name is Stefani Germanotta, posted the video after getting word that she had replaced singer Spears as the person with the greatest following at microblogging service Twitter.

The music star known for creative outfits had 5,750,270 followers at Twitter as of early Monday in California, while there were 5,712,098 people signed on to receive musings or other terse missives fired off at the service by Spears.

Others in the club of Twitter users with more than five million followers included US president Barack Obama and celebrities Ashton Kutcher and Ellen DeGeneres.

As with fame, popularity at Twitter is subject to the whims of fans.

"May you always have cropped cuticles while tweeting and may you never have carpal tunnel," Lady Gaga said, referring to a repetitive stress injury sometimes caused by too much typing.


Now back to whatever mundane thing you guys were talking about...

panerd 08-24-2010 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2338081)
I don't think you're using the word correctly. Particularly as it's used in the modern sense, rather than in the "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" more general definition. And even then I'd argue that never voting Republican doesn't make one intolerant at all. Certainly not by the dictionary definition of intolerant. And obstinance - well everyone will claim that the person that disagrees with them is being obstinant by the dictionary definition.

Never voting for a Republican doesn't make you obstinate or intolerant. Nice try though Dutch.


My guess is that he is using the word bigot to apply to people like Louis Farrakhan and his "ilk" who would fit very nicely into your definition.

DaddyTorgo 08-24-2010 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338202)
My guess is that he is using the word bigot to apply to people like Louis Farrakhan and his "ilk" who would fit very nicely into your definition.


True - they would.

I'm not about to sit here and defend the Nation of Islam. I could care less about their religion, but I'm not about to defend them on any grounds really.

So I hope nobody was looking forward to seeing that.

Dutch 08-24-2010 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338202)
My guess is that he is using the word bigot to apply to people like Louis Farrakhan and his "ilk" who would fit very nicely into your definition.


I'm pretty sure I didn't mean obvious extremists. Plus, I haven't "met" Mr Farrakhan. :) I'll bet I meant regular folk like you and me.

JonInMiddleGA 08-24-2010 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2338096)
FWIW my new pet peeve is posting "official" definitions to make a point. Language is as language does.


Oddly enough though, since you said something nice about me earlier in the same post, I'm probably one of the more notorious here for doing the definition thing (re: "enemy"). I'll defend the technique in general though because while primary usage may be subject to the whims of public opinion, sometimes a definition is very useful when you're using a word in a way that may not be as familiar even though it is technically correct.

albionmoonlight 08-25-2010 11:33 AM

Nate Silver's new senate model is up. Right now, it has the Dems at 52 seats.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 12:32 PM

The GOP candidates in KY, CT, FL, NV and CO make it very difficult to imagine a GOP Senate next year.

lungs 08-25-2010 12:39 PM

Russ Feingold is getting a run for his money here in WI but the Feingold Machine and local liberal media is starting to chew his opponent to mincemeat and I'm not sure RonJohnson is a seasoned enough candidate to fight back.

larrymcg421 08-25-2010 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338596)
The GOP candidates in KY, CT, FL, NV and CO make it very difficult to imagine a GOP Senate next year.


But if it happened, especially with those people, it would almost guarantee another Dem wave election in 2012.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2338597)
Russ Feingold is getting a run for his money here in WI but the Feingold Machine and local liberal media is starting to chew his opponent to mincemeat and I'm not sure RonJohnson is a seasoned enough candidate to fight back.


Johnson's another nutcase that's making it harder for the GOP to win,

RainMaker 08-25-2010 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2338582)
Nate Silver's new senate model is up. Right now, it has the Dems at 52 seats.

I'm pumped that Illinois actually has a race that will be close on a national scale for once. Not sure who I'm voting for in it, but it beats voting in elections where one guy wins by a landslide.

I'm sort of surprised how well Angle is doing in Nevada. I know Reid is a fuck-up, but that chick is fucking looney. Florida should be one of the funnest races of all. Will be interesting to see if Crist can get enough Democrats to say "fuck it" and dump their guy who has no shot for him.

SirFozzie 08-25-2010 02:32 PM

*sighs* If true (and right now I think it is), then some of the folks stirring up the Islam-hatred have some 'splainin to do:

Cab Driver Stabbed: 'Are You Muslim?' Question Leads to Hate Crime Charge - ABC News

JPhillips 08-25-2010 02:43 PM

Should we be suspicious of all white people now?

larrymcg421 08-25-2010 02:49 PM

We should certainly not let someone build a church anywhere near a taxicab.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 02:58 PM

This does provide yet another use for the Leatherman.

Dutch 08-25-2010 03:14 PM

This adds a bit of complexity to the story.

What We Know About Michael Enright, The Alleged Slasher Of The Muslim Cabbie | TPMMuckraker

What a weird turn of events for this guy, or so it seems.

panerd 08-25-2010 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338596)
The GOP candidates in KY, CT, FL, NV and CO make it very difficult to imagine a GOP Senate next year.


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." (Even after the primaries JPhillips is still stuck on the ridicule stage while at least the rest of his party has moved to the fight stage)

LOL. Keep reading your liberal blogs. I will bet right now at least 3 of those seats go to repub's and besides CT think it will probably be four. How much you willing to go? Of course there will be 300 more Rand Paul smear articles by November, but guess what? He is still going to win.

Paul wins easily.
McMahon (deservedly because it should be Peter Schiff and not someone who contributed to Rahm Emanuel's campaign) loses big.
Rubio wins even fighting against the Republicrat double ticket.
Angle wins over the majority leader of this popular senate.
I know very little about Colorado.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 04:15 PM

I'd guess three wins for the GOP.

Look at all the polls. In almost every case the more mainstream candidate was polling better than the person that won. In each of these states the candidate selected in the primary was the lesser choice. I don't know why that's so personally insulting for you.

panerd 08-25-2010 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338693)
I'd guess three wins for the GOP.

Look at all the polls. In almost every case the more mainstream candidate was polling better than the person that won. In each of these states the candidate selected in the primary was the lesser choice. I don't know why that's so personally insulting for you.


You pick the five "tea party" canidates (though I would say McMahon is a joke) and choose to say they are the weak ones. I guess you can try to spin it in November but most of this country is pissed off at both parties and these are the "outsiders" that will win.

LOL that you are guessing 3 when your first post implied very little chance for any of them.

panerd 08-25-2010 04:19 PM

Plus it isn't really personally insulting. Outside of Paul (and I don't really like his views on the Middle East) these guys aren't my cup of tea. I am more amused at the liberals putting down these candidates as easier to beat. These are the ones that are going to win big. (Obviously again with the exception of CT again where Linda McMahon is almost as bad as just letting Dodd run again)

JPhillips 08-25-2010 04:22 PM

No, my first post implied that the choices of candidates makes it difficult to see a GOP takeover in the Senate. (Hint: You can tell because that's what it said!)

I'm also a little surprised to see you so strongly backing candidates that are spouting the GOP party line on foreign policy and in every case but Paul, supporting a Christian Conservative domestic policy. They may talk the talk on spending, but unless they're lying they really aren't anything but hard right Republicans.

Which, of course, is why the more moderate candidates were polling better in the two way polls.

panerd 08-25-2010 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338698)
I'm also a little surprised to see you so strongly backing candidates that are spouting the GOP party line on foreign policy and in every case but Paul, supporting a Christian Conservative domestic policy. They may talk the talk on spending, but unless they're lying they really aren't anything but hard right Republicans.

Which, of course, is why the more moderate candidates were polling better in the two way polls.


Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338697)
Plus it isn't really personally insulting. Outside of Paul (and I don't really like his views on the Middle East) these guys aren't my cup of tea. I am more amused at the liberals putting down these candidates as easier to beat. These are the ones that are going to win big. (Obviously again with the exception of CT again where Linda McMahon is almost as bad as just letting Dodd run again)


I am a fan of Rand's father, think Rand could go more radical once elected, and could care less about the other 4. Just helping soften the blow when they win in November.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 04:26 PM

Liberals aren't putting them down as easier to beat, polling data is.

JonInMiddleGA 08-25-2010 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338695)
You pick the five "tea party" canidates (though I would say McMahon is a joke) and choose to say they are the weak ones. I guess you can try to spin it in November but most of this country is pissed off at both parties and these are the "outsiders" that will win.


Just to set a benchmark date for future reference (since I was curious where things stood atm anyway) ... from the latest Rasmussen

Paul leads 49-40 on 8/18 (leads 51-41 with leaners included)
Buck leads 46-41 on 8/12
Rubio leads 38-33-21 on 8/11 (if Meek), Crist led 37-36-20 if Greene had won
Angle is tied 47-47 on 8/18 (but leads with leaners included 50-48)
McMahon trails 47-40 on 8/13 (trailed 56-33 in June)

panerd 08-25-2010 04:29 PM

Would much rather have Obama and the liberals end the war in the middle East, end the useless drug war, and stop spending so much than I would have the Neo-con nuts back in power that want to invade Iran and build a giant church in Pakistan. But Obama hasn't come close to any of my wishes for him so I guess I will have to see if this new set of Republicans cater more towards the Libertarians. (My guess is they won't)

JonInMiddleGA 08-25-2010 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2338711)
Considering the political tilt of Kentucky and the political picture in general, Rand Paul should be winning big. But, thanks to things like saying sheriffs don't need federal money to fight meth dealers in Eastern Kentucky, it's a toss up race.


Interestingly enough I almost mentioned that same thing. Rand looks like a guy who is always just one press conference away from blowing his lead & about two press conferences away from getting himself beat.

edit to add: And if his dad keeps shooting off his mouth (like the mosque flap), then the margin for error with conservative voters gets even smaller.

panerd 08-25-2010 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2338711)
Considering the political tilt of Kentucky and the political picture in general, Rand Paul should be winning big. But, thanks to things like saying sheriffs don't need federal money to fight meth dealers in Eastern Kentucky, it's a toss up race.

Again, the GOP could've had an easy pickup in Florida with Crist but instead, they're going to have spend money and resources to win a tough three-way race.

Every non-Rasmussen poll has shown Reid beating Angle and don't forget, there is a 'None of the Above' option in Nevada. So, Reid doesn't have to win 50%+1. He has to win maybe 46-47% and thanks to Angle saying things like that there are domestic enemies inside the halls of Congress, another easy GOP pickup is falling to the wayside.

The only saving grace for the GOP in Colorado is the worse Democratic candidate in the DNC primary won. But, just for example, the 'Tea Party' candidate who won the GOP primary is so bad it split the party and will lead to another DNC hold.

The larger point isn't whether these candidates will win or lose, the larger point is that the wins by Tea Party types are causing the GOP to waste more money and resources than they should have to on these races which leads to less money and resources for other races.


Yeah I never understood why they have those pesky primary elections where the people can show they are pissed off at the government. They should just run the candidate that can talk about how bad Obama is or how bad Bush was. Those tea partiers really have no right voting in majority numbers in any of those elections.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 04:37 PM

Jon: I think the RCP averages give us a better picture by aggregating multiple polls.

CT- Blumenthal +8.5
KY- Paul +5.5
FL- Rubio +1.4
CO- Buck +2.8
NV- Reid +1.5

panerd 08-25-2010 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2338716)
I have no problem with primary elections. But, a smart person has to think about if the person they support will have a chance to win with the rest of the population instead of just the 15% that votes in a primary. You can nominate all the true believers you want, but it doesn't matter a damn if none of them actually get in office.

I mean, my local Congressman (Jim McDermott) is awesome, but I know he'd never win in a lot of districts and I'm OK with that.


You and JPhillips seem to being agreeing with JimGA about who the Republicans should run. I think I will just leave it at that, not much more needs to be said about the man who wants to end the enemy.

JonInMiddleGA 08-25-2010 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338717)
Jon: I think the RCP averages give us a better picture by aggregating multiple polls.

CT- Blumenthal +8.5
KY- Paul +5.5
FL- Rubio +1.4
CO- Buck +2.8
NV- Reid +1.5


FWIW please infer no bias, political or otherwise, on my part with the ones I quoted. I had just finished reading something from Ras a little earlier & knew I could pop it up in my browser easily to get something quick.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 04:43 PM

I'm not saying anything about who they should vote for, I'm merely pointing out that the people that were chosen poll worse than the more mainstream candidates. That's factual whether you like it or not.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2338722)
FWIW please infer no bias, political or otherwise, on my part with the ones I quoted. I had just finished reading something from Ras a little earlier & knew I could pop it up in my browser easily to get something quick.


I didn't, I just thought RCP provides a clearer picture.

JonInMiddleGA 08-25-2010 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338720)
You and JPhillips seem to being agreeing with JimGA about who the Republicans should run. I think I will just leave it at that, not much more needs to be said about the man who wants to end the enemy.


???

I supported Rubio, Angle, and McMahon in their bids for nomination, wasn't particularly disturbed about Paul as I recall, didn't follow Buck's race closely enough to have a formed a strong opinion. If I've been reading JP and SB correctly, that's not the position they're taking.

JonInMiddleGA 08-25-2010 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338724)
I didn't, I just thought RCP provides a clearer picture.


Cool.

JonInMiddleGA 08-25-2010 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2338725)
On Rand Paul, yes. But, even other conservatives have said he's done some stupid things during his campaign. I realize he's the Prodigal Son of Libertarianism, but he's made some major unforced errors. There's no reason a Republican in Tennessee in 2010 shouldn't be winning by 15-20 points.

This is just anecdotal, but I know another person on another message board who's a hardcore conservative from Tennessee who is almost as bad as Jon, but he's refusing to vote for Paul for a variety of issues. Note he's not voting for Conway. He's just leaving the spot blank.


Hmm, maybe panerd's comparison in our thoughts was meant to be limited to Rand P, and that limitation just went over my head. Hadn't thought of it that way before my previous ??? to him.

That said, I'm gonna guess you mean Kentucky instead of Tennessee here? In TN, the top of the ballot this year is the governor's race & the (R) there does indeed lead 56-31.

JonInMiddleGA 08-25-2010 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2338729)
Kentucky. Tennessee. All the same inbred traitors. :)


Just pointing out that the R's are performing more to expectations in TN ;)

DaddyTorgo 08-25-2010 04:57 PM

Rand Paul is gonna win? That's so 2 weeks ago panerd. Everybody in KY is coming out against him since he's talked about the war on drugs not being an issue there in KY and cutting funding for that and stuff.

He's in serious trouble.

And if Angle wins, with her absolute batshit looney ideas (and look, i really dislike Reid), that says something seriously significant about NV voters lack of intelligence.

panerd 08-25-2010 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2338733)
Rand Paul is gonna win? That's so 2 weeks ago panerd. Everybody in KY is coming out against him since he's talked about the war on drugs not being an issue there in KY and cutting funding for that and stuff.

He's in serious trouble.

And if Angle wins, with her absolute batshit looney ideas (and look, i really dislike Reid), that says something seriously significant about NV voters lack of intelligence.



How about a friendly wager? Like I mentioned above I am no fan of Rand Paul's half endorsement of the neo-con "bomb the world" approach and think he has ions to go to have the grace and class of his father. With that said no national mass media smear campaign is keeping him out of office. It is Kentucky, zero doubt he wins. Possibly in a landslide.

panerd 08-25-2010 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2338728)
Hmm, maybe panerd's comparison in our thoughts was meant to be limited to Rand P, and that limitation just went over my head. Hadn't thought of it that way before my previous ??? to him.

That said, I'm gonna guess you mean Kentucky instead of Tennessee here? In TN, the top of the ballot this year is the governor's race & the (R) there does indeed lead 56-31.


Yeah it was more about Rand Paul. The local NBC station smear campagin is in full force (why they are so concerned about the Kentucky senate is beyond me. Actually is isn't, it is so transperently obvious what their agenda is) Rand acted like a college student in college, people donate to his campaign that you wouldn't want over to your house for dinner (this never happens to anyone else), Rand actually has read the constitution. (OK I made the last one up)

JPhillips 08-25-2010 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338804)
How about a friendly wager? Like I mentioned above I am no fan of Rand Paul's half endorsement of the neo-con "bomb the world" approach and think he has ions to go to have the grace and class of his father. With that said no national mass media smear campaign is keeping him out of office. It is Kentucky, zero doubt he wins. Possibly in a landslide.


I still think Paul is the favorite, but I'm not convinced he'll win. He's much more ideologically in tune with KY, but he's made a terrible blunder not knowing the issues that matter in KY. It's fine to be focused on national issues, but he may have killed himself with his stances on mine safety, drug enforcement and unemployment.

My wife has an aunt in eastern KY that loves to say, "Don't get above your raisin'." Paul has to be careful that he doesn't appear to be disconnected to the rural voters that can make a difference in the race.

JPhillips 08-25-2010 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338805)
Yeah it was more about Rand Paul. The local NBC station smear campagin is in full force (why they are so concerned about the Kentucky senate is beyond me. Actually is isn't, it is so transperently obvious what their agenda is) Rand acted like a college student in college, people donate to his campaign that you wouldn't want over to your house for dinner (this never happens to anyone else), Rand actually has read the constitution. (OK I made the last one up)


Yes, everyone is out to get the poor libertarians.

panerd 08-25-2010 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338810)
Yes, everyone is out to get the poor libertarians.


You seem fascinated with Paul. Why him more than McCain or Rob Portman or Roy Blunt or Mark Kirk or any of the other 40 something races? Why does the local NBC site carry Paul stories almost as often as Blunt/Carnahan stories? Simple questions.

Here is the last month in St. Louis (Missouri, not in Kentucky mind you)...

Rand Paul receives donation from adult website | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO
Rand Paul says babies of illegals shouldn't be made citizens | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO
Rand Paul says America's poor are better off than those elsewhere | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO
GQ: Rand Paul abducted female student, told her to take bong hits | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO
Libertarians turn back on Rand Paul following Civil Rights comments | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO
Rand Paul rallies the Tea Party in Kentucky | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

Here is my search result for Sharron Angle (you libs claim she is equally as or even more nutty than Rand)

Nevada senate candidate Sharron Angle: Democrats want to 'make government our God' | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

Here is Rob Portman...

"Did you mean Rob Fortman?"

JPhillips 08-25-2010 10:08 PM

So now we shouldn't pay attention to libertarians?

btw- You do know that's just the AP feed?

Greyroofoo 08-25-2010 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338815)
So now we shouldn't pay attention to libertarians?


And how is that a change?

sterlingice 08-26-2010 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2338813)
Here is Rob Portman...

"Did you mean Rob Fortman?"


:D

SI

RainMaker 08-26-2010 06:15 AM

Rand Paul is really a Libertarian? Seems his stance is right in line with the Republican Party on just about everything.

miked 08-26-2010 06:59 AM

I think that's the thing with these "tea party libertarians" is that they are just normal republicans who shout "spending bad, lower taxes" louder than their counterparts. Everything else is pretty much party line...socially ultraconservative, fiscally conservative until they are in office. Boy do I wish these Americans who are sick of high government spending would've just organized with a white bible-beater in office.

JonInMiddleGA 08-26-2010 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2338879)
Boy do I wish these Americans who are sick of high government spending would've just organized with a white bible-beater in office.


You're underestimating the portion of the upset that is connected to how the money is being spent. There's certainly some "principle of the thing" involved for many but the increased level of anger (IMO) is directly related to being slapped in the face with the realization that the spending is being directed by people you wouldn't trust to buy you the right drink from a vending machine nor bring back change.

molson 08-26-2010 11:13 AM

Maybe more for the random thought thread, but I had the "pleasure" of attending a Occupational Licensing Board hearing yesterday. I think there were about 8 lawyers, 5-6 board members, and a few other assorted suits pushing paper for several hours. And nothing happened. God knows what the taxpayer bill ended up being. I think every American should have to sit through at least one of these abortions of government waste before they're allowed to vote.

And I'm not even saying, generically, "big government is bad". But the big government that WE happen to have is far too often a ridiculous, insane waste of money, and it too often accomplishes nothing positive. And I don't know if people on the outside, listening the to ideals spouted by politicans, can possibly get that.

Administrative government is no different than the military, or law enforcement industries. It's a business, looking to improve revenue, and it constantly needs to justify its existence so people can keep their jobs and make more money. That's what motivates that machine, just like any other business.

DaddyTorgo 08-26-2010 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2339032)
You're underestimating the portion of the upset that is connected to how the money is being spent. There's certainly some "principle of the thing" involved for many but the increased level of anger (IMO) is directly related to being slapped in the face with the realization that the spending is being directed by people you wouldn't trust to buy you the right drink from a vending machine nor bring back change.


Because they're all a bunch of crybaby sore-losers?

Toughen up. Jeez...I would have thought you of all people Jon would be all for instilling toughness and resiliency, rather than whining because you lost.

And fact of the matter is - in many cases the money is being spent on the same shit that Republicans spent it on. Same programs that they started or continued for years.

JPhillips 08-26-2010 11:14 AM

In general I think there's way too much licensing for many professions.

JonInMiddleGA 08-26-2010 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2339036)
Toughen up. Jeez...I would have thought you of all people Jon would be all for instilling toughness and resiliency, rather than whining because you lost.


Actually I'm all for removing the current crop of vermin from DC by any means necessary. Anything & everything else is secondary to that, there simply is no more urgent matter to attend to than that.

molson 08-26-2010 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2339037)
In general I think there's way too much licensing for many professions.


It's important to license some industries, but it's beyond silly to put members of one profession in charge of members of the same profession. I mean, they should just call it the occupational corruption board. Everyone has an agenda, everyone's there to make a buck, and nobody's going to discipline anyone, no matter how severe the violation, if they feel that it will negatively impact themselves professsionally. Occupational licensing is really just a easy 2nd job/networking (i.e. corruption) opportunity.

JediKooter 08-26-2010 11:30 AM

Former RNC chairman gay. World did not explode.

Bush Campaign Chief and Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman: I'm Gay - Politics - The Atlantic

JonInMiddleGA 08-26-2010 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2339046)
Former RNC chairman gay. World did not explode.


He hasn't been relevant to much of anything in, what, four years? Not the most flammable of situations. It's disappointing naturally but not particularly damaging in any meaningful way.

molson 08-26-2010 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2339076)
In general, local and state government is far more bloated, inefficient, and corrupt than the federal government. Which is why I always find the call to give more powers back to the states so funny.


I couldn't disagree with you more. The feds are far worse. At least the states have to balance their budgets. So even though a ton of the money is wasted, at least we pay for it by reduced services, instead of just printing currency.

A state governor can order every state agency to cut their budgets 5% overnight, or order all government employees to stay home twice a month and not get paid. That saves a boatload. That's not an option for the federal government. There's no concept at the federal level that if you want to spend billions on some worthless program, that you have to then cut back spending somewhere else. That concept doesn't exist (under any administration, Republican or Democrat).

So there's at least some hypothetical accountability at the state level. If a state agency wastes money, they're directly taking services from the taxpayers. Taxpayers notice that and get pissed. You can get a sense of government accountability - if they blow money here, you can see why/how they have to cut schools. With the feds, that connection isn't as clear, so you don't have the same motivation to be efficient. What's another few billion in debt? Some people still try to make that argument at the fed level where it makes no sense - they'll say, "We need to end the wars and spend the money on education here". It's not an either/or, they can just spend the money on both, and anything else, and just leave the mess for the future. There would be even more opposition to the wars if taxpayers could see that they were actually impacting fed services here. ("We're going to invade Iraq, but to pay for it we're going to cut your health care.") We wouldn't have invaded Iraq if that kind of accountability was a part of fed spending.

Mustang 08-26-2010 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2339083)
A state governor can order every state agency to cut their budgets 5% overnight


You've never met Jim Doyle (Governor of WI). I don't think the word 'cut' is anywhere in his vocabulary.

Ronnie Dobbs2 08-26-2010 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2338596)
The GOP candidates in KY, CT, FL, NV and CO make it very difficult to imagine a GOP Senate next year.


538 Projections for GOP victory:

KY - 75%
CT - 5%
FL - 52% (with Meek at .7%)
NV - 60%
CO - 77%

Welcome (and Welcome Back) to FiveThirtyEight - NYTimes.com

JediKooter 08-26-2010 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2339051)
He hasn't been relevant to much of anything in, what, four years? Not the most flammable of situations. It's disappointing naturally but not particularly damaging in any meaningful way.


Notice the past tense that I used. Like I said, he was chairman of the RNC and the world did not explode.

Flasch186 08-26-2010 07:04 PM

Hypocrisy is no less disappointing, especially IMO evil hypocrisy, when its in the past tense.

panerd 08-26-2010 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2339217)
Hypocrisy is no less disappointing, especially IMO evil hypocrisy, when its in the past tense.


.






All he needs is a mission accomplished banner.

DaddyTorgo 08-26-2010 07:19 PM

What's your point on the first pic panerd?

Obama didn't award himself the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't campaign for it or anything. It was awarded to him...wtf was he supposed to do exactly?

And I'm not sure what's up with the 2nd pic.

panerd 08-26-2010 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2339228)
What's your point on the first pic panerd?

Obama didn't award himself the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't campaign for it or anything. It was awarded to him...wtf was he supposed to do exactly?

And I'm not sure what's up with the 2nd pic.


You're right... Obama endless war in Middle East good. I am sure you can probably get bi-partisan agreement on that.

DaddyTorgo 08-26-2010 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2339231)
You're right... Obama endless war in Middle East good. I am sure you can probably get bi-partisan agreement on that.


:confused:

JediKooter 08-26-2010 07:27 PM

So no one caught the news that all combat troops are gone from Iraq by Tuesday?

panerd 08-26-2010 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2339233)
So no one caught the news that all combat troops are gone from Iraq by Tuesday?


You're right. He should win another Nobel Peace Prize for that. Maybe a third for Pakistan.

JediKooter 08-26-2010 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2339234)
You're right. He should win another Nobel Peace Prize for that. Maybe a third for Pakistan.


That would just be showing off at that point.

Greyroofoo 08-26-2010 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2339233)
So no one caught the news that all combat troops are gone from Iraq by Tuesday?


Now if we could pull the rest of the 50,000 troops and stop INCREASING the number of combat contractors that'd be fantastic.

DaddyTorgo 08-26-2010 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo (Post 2339243)
Now if we could pull the rest of the 50,000 troops and stop INCREASING the number of combat contractors that'd be fantastic.


Agreed

RainMaker 08-26-2010 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2339032)
You're underestimating the portion of the upset that is connected to how the money is being spent. There's certainly some "principle of the thing" involved for many but the increased level of anger (IMO) is directly related to being slapped in the face with the realization that the spending is being directed by people you wouldn't trust to buy you the right drink from a vending machine nor bring back change.

Sounds like a sophisticated way to call someone a hypocrite.

molson 08-27-2010 11:10 AM

I read a letter recently from a very unhappy incarcerated gentleman who is promising to take up his grievences with "Rocco Bomma".

I love the fact that there's apparently a contingent of prisoners in America who believe our president;s name is "Rocco". I mean, that's just a great name for a president.

JediKooter 08-27-2010 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo (Post 2339243)
Now if we could pull the rest of the 50,000 troops and stop INCREASING the number of combat contractors that'd be fantastic.


I agree.

JPhillips 08-28-2010 10:10 AM

So how do you go about reserving the Lincoln Memorial for a party?

fpres 08-28-2010 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2339842)
So how do you go about reserving the Lincoln Memorial for a party?


Put Albert Pujols on the guest list. :D

panerd 08-28-2010 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul on pseudo Tea Partiers like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, ...
As one who is opposed to centralization, I am wary of attempts to turn a grassroots movement against big government like the Tea Party into an adjunct of the Republican Party. I find it even more worrisome when I see those who willingly participated in the most egregious excesses of the most recent Republican Congress push their way into leadership roles of this movement without batting an eye -- or changing their policies!

As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.

Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as their own communities crumble and our economic decline continues.

I see tremendous opportunities for movements like the Tea Party to prosper by capitalizing on the Democrats' broken promises to overturn the George W. Bush administration's civil liberties abuses and end the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health. I am optimistic, and our numbers are increasing!


You may not agree with him but he is only one of a few Republican's who is consistant on this issue. Either you are against big government both at home and abroad or you aren't really against big government.

panerd 08-28-2010 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2339903)
Hey, I've always said Ron Paul is crazy, but at least he's consistent in his craziness.


Nah I call it integrity. IMO Dennis Kucinich joins him on the short list of Congressmen who have it. Don't agree with his economic policies but I won't write him off as "crazy" for having actual ideas and being consistant to his message.

miked 08-28-2010 06:52 PM

I always find it funny when they refer to people like Michelle Bachmann as a "tea party darling" or something.

larrymcg421 08-28-2010 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2339902)
You may not agree with him but he is only one of a few Republican's who is consistant on this issue. Either you are against big government both at home and abroad or you aren't really against big government.


I'm not against big government.

Warhammer 08-28-2010 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2338725)
On Rand Paul, yes. But, even other conservatives have said he's done some stupid things during his campaign. I realize he's the Prodigal Son of Libertarianism, but he's made some major unforced errors. There's no reason a Republican in Tennessee in 2010 shouldn't be winning by 15-20 points.

This is just anecdotal, but I know another person on another message board who's a hardcore conservative from Tennessee who is almost as bad as Jon, but he's refusing to vote for Paul for a variety of issues. Note he's not voting for Conway. He's just leaving the spot blank.


Do you know much about the state? You have two major metro areas that are heavy Democrat and then suburbs and rural areas that are strong Republican areas.

If anything, Tennessee is a moderate state that can wind up in either column depending upon voter turnout and the candidate.

stevew 08-29-2010 12:02 AM

Rand Paul is running for senate in Kentucky, right? What's going on here or am i reading shit wrong.

stevew 08-29-2010 12:06 AM

And I hope Traficant gets on the ballot this fall, although he'll probably lose(district was all hacked up)

Young Drachma 08-29-2010 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2339974)
Rand Paul is running for senate in Kentucky, right? What's going on here or am i reading shit wrong.


Yes, he is. And Dan Quayle's son won the Republican primary in Arizona for Congress. Was the state difference throwing you off? It did for me at first with Paul, specifically.

stevew 08-29-2010 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 2339977)
Yes, he is. And Dan Quayle's son won the Republican primary in Arizona for Congress. Was the state difference throwing you off? It did for me at first with Paul, specifically.


Bollea was talking about tennessee or something, I read back enough posts to figure it out what he meant. But the quote on this page made it seem like Paul was running in TN.

DaddyTorgo 08-30-2010 04:54 PM

Okay - I'm sure this will likely degenerate into the standard argument in this thread, but I have a serious question.

You look at someone like Joe Miller from Alaska, who thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and who wants to go "back to constitutional basics."

Notwithstanding everything else, aren't these people just naive in their belief that essentially nothing has changed? It's not the same world that it was in the late 18th century. It's infinitely more complex, more interconnected. For fuck's sake...we can travel in hours what used to take months back then.

Pretending that a group of guys who got together late in the 18th century could have the solution to all of the problems and challenges facing us today is like sticking your head in the sand. It's like running the ball on first down, gaining a yard, then deciding to punt the ball on second down.

I think in a lot of respects that it's cowardly. It's "decision by indecision" in a sense. Refusing to make decisions, or hard choices on their own, and instead relying on some ancient piece of paper that, while soaring and epic and inspirational in its rhetoric and historical importance, can not possibly adequetly address the myriad challenges of a 21st century world.

Ronnie Dobbs2 08-30-2010 05:02 PM

Not to be flip with your point, but the other side of the coin is that when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.

That is to say, rather than it being cowardly to prefer not solve all our problems using the tools of government, perhaps it is wise not to give the government a ton of money with which it can find problems to solve.

JonInMiddleGA 08-30-2010 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2340689)
Okay - I'm sure this will likely degenerate into the standard argument in this thread, but I have a serious question.
... Refusing to make decisions, or hard choices on their own, and instead relying on some ancient piece of paper that, while soaring and epic and inspirational in its rhetoric and historical importance, can not possibly adequetly address the myriad challenges of a 21st century world.


I'll give you a somewhat serious answer, although I'll stipulate that it's also somewhat theoretical.

That document -- which I unabashedly describe largely as a means to an end afaic -- does provide a mechanism for changes. I believe that there's a very valid argument to be made that, if the will exists to do X but X happens to be unconstitutional, then follow the amendment process & make it constitutional, thus ending the any constitutional issues.

If the will to do X is lacking then there's also a valid argument to be made that X shouldn't be done.

Bottom line probably ought to be that either we have a constitution that we follow or we don't. Instead what we've got now is more like a complex sequence of end runs that are intellectually defensible only by whomever personally benefits from them, or more accurately perhaps, whomever's ox isn't being gored.

DaddyTorgo 08-30-2010 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2340692)
Not to be flip with your point, but the other side of the coin is that when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.

That is to say, rather than it being cowardly to prefer not solve all our problems using the tools of government, perhaps it is wise not to give the government a ton of money with which it can find problems to solve.


The problems would exist anyways though. Senior citizens needing affordable healthcare isn't going to just go away.

And from a strict constitutionalist standpoint I'm not even necessarily talking about money. I'm talking about things like the Commerce Clause, the FDA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you live in a strict constitutionalist world then you want to severly limit the useability of the Commerce Clause and all sorts of beneficial agencies and functions of government get stripped away. And the free market doesn't have, and won't create a replacement for them.

To take OSHA for example, the counter-argument will be "well people won't go work for unsafe employers." Problem is that that safety can only be determined by working there and incidents occuring there, because there's no independent free-market agency that is going to ensure they meet those minimum safety standards. So people will get injured on the job.

And that's just one example. Take that to another degree with food safety, or drug safety.

Centralization is a necessary component of modernization. We don't live in a horse-and-buggy world where people farm there own food and know everybody in their town anymore.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.