The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

To put this to rest - the damn dairy farmer on the board won't even feed his COWS raw milk. And yet people want to drink it? That's some messed up shit.

I say let them drink it. Maybe it will streamline the gene pool a little bit.

[lungs]

Not to say that it can't be done well, but man, one bad day can lead to a lot of sick people and maybe worse.

The benefits to drinking are dubious at best. I could drink my own if I wanted, but my milk is of higher fat content than whole milk even. I prefer 1% fat actually. My cows' milk usually runs about 4%.

[RainMaker]

[Greyroofoo]

hah! Because fat people don't count for anything...

[molson]

That woman's not just "fat", she's anatomically confusing.

[RainMaker]

It's just pointing out the hypocrisy. They ran around claiming government is too big and it should stay out of our personal lives and businesses. Then they propose a shit ton of changes that tells people how to live their life and dictates what businesses are allowed in the State. I know the people they are targeting are fucking retards, but I just can't stand hypocrisy like that.

And also, their platform is a little worse than what was posted earlier. Some things that weren't mentioned here:

- Banning all strip clubs
- Banning all pornography
- Banning all forms of gambling
- Banning oral and anal sex
- Banning the morning after pill (they call it dangerous!)
- Requiring a blood test to get married
- Use corporal punishment in classrooms
- Bringing intelligent design into the classroom
- Oppose any sex education other than abstinence before heterosexual marriage.

There's a lot of other goodies in the document, including calling Martin Luther King a Republican.

Any Texans on this board? How do you feel that it's going to be illegal to go to RedTube and get a blowjob from your lady?

[DaddyTorgo]

zoinks - i didn't see those parts of it RainMaker. Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source? My BFF moved to Texas and I'd love to point out to him that the fundies don't want his fiancee to be able to give him a BJ, or for them to be able to hit up the strip clubs in San Antonio

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think we've reached the point where opposition to gay marriage is a "fringe idea".

It's not the opposition to gay marriage which is fringe, it's what they write about it in the platform. They go on and on about homosexuals. You'd think they were talking about terrorists or child molesters. Here's an excerpt:

Homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

Not to mention the fact that they want to make it illegal for gays to have sex.

If you read through some of the writings from 60+ years ago about interracial marriage and couples, you'll see it's eerily similar.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't think (unfortunately) we've reached the point where opposition to gay marriage is "fringe" (although I hope we will in my lifetime), but honestly, I do think we've reached the point where the type of extreme homophobia put forth in their platform is "fringe."

And I don't just mean "disapproval." I mean the "the gheys are evil and they are all going to hell etc." type of homophobia. The Matthew Sheppard-style gay-hating.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

zoinks - i didn't see those parts of it RainMaker. Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source? My BFF moved to Texas and I'd love to point out to him that the fundies don't want his fiancee to be able to give him a BJ, or for them to be able to hit up the strip clubs in San Antonio

http://static.texastribune.org/media...Y_PLATFORM.pdf

If there is something you can't find, let me know and I'll look it up again.

You can also tell him that they want to promote covenant marrage and get rid of no-fault ones. That means that they can't get divorced unless one of them gets convicted of a felony, beats the other up, or cheats.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: raw milk - just lived through that bizarre tempest in a teapot during the last session of the state legislature here in Georgia, courtesy of legislation introduced by one of Athens left wing whackdoos. Last I can find, it died from inaction in committee (unless the provisions got added via amendment to some other bill that passed).

[RainMaker]

I don't understand the raw milk thing. Is it really an important issue? If someone wants to drink it, who gives a shit?

[Groundhog]

Can't say I expected to see folks talking about the drinking of raw milk when I opened up this thread.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Supposedly, there is also a video that is taken for situations like yours, but, I'm not sure all cameras are equipped with that though. I think depending on the state, if the picture can't clearly identify the driver, then it's supposed to be tossed out. A friend of mine in Chicago got his picture taken, but, when you looked at the picture, you couldn't really see his face and the ticket was dismissed.

Thanks, I have read something like that. That might work, since I was driving, and the car is in my wife's name -- so I guess if she went, maybe it's more likely to get tossed. But I was planning on taking care of it, since I was driving. Hmm.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't understand the raw milk thing. Is it really an important issue? If someone wants to drink it, who gives a shit?

It isn't about whether someone wants to drink t, but whether someone can sell it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Couldn't it have just as easily said "I like big government. I haven't worked a day in my life but not to worry other people will pay for my house, for me and any kids I have to eat, and for my health problems" and had a picture of the same woman or (God forbid!) a big fat black woman? But that would be racist! Picking on fat people on the other hand is funny.

IMO it would have been a better caricature of Republicans with a Southern pastor than a fat woman.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by panerd

Couldn't it have just as easily said "I like big government. I haven't worked a day in my life but not to worry other people will pay for my house, for me and any kids I have to eat, and for my health problems" and had a picture of the same woman or (God forbid!) a big fat black woman? But that would be racist! Picking on fat people on the other hand is funny.

IMO it would have been a better caricature of Republicans with a Southern pastor than a fat woman.

I thought it was more about the clashing statements about not wanting big government to interfere, but then wanting the same big government to band homosexuals, abortions, and pornography.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Any Texans on this board? How do you feel that it's going to be illegal to go to RedTube and get a blowjob from your lady?

I mentioned earlier that I hope Bill White can bring some of the electoral success he had running for Mayor of Houston to the Governor's race. There needs to be some ideological balance brought back in to the state government.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Any Texans on this board? How do you feel that it's going to be illegal to go to RedTube and get a blowjob from your lady?

You are doing the same thing they are doing - using ideas that will never actually become law to rile up your base.

[flere-imsaho]

I was actually first introduced to the "raw milk thing" in England as a foodie thing. Specifically foodies sought out cheeses made with raw milk.

I was next acquainted with the "raw milk thing" back in the States listening to a rant by a free-market libertarian about how farmers should be able to sell milk without pasteurization and that this regulation was unnecessary government interference.

So I've never actually seen it as a hippie thing.

On a personal level, I don't have strong feelings either way. On one hand I wouldn't mind it being legal, but on the other hand I'd hate to see some kid (especially an infant) die because some stupid parent (at least as likely to be a libertarian as a hippie, in my mind) gave it to the kid.


lungs: does the cheese-making process reduce the risk, or does it remain the same?

[Passacaglia]

I love me some unpasteurized apple cider, but don't think I'd do it with milk.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's just pointing out the hypocrisy. They ran around claiming government is too big and it should stay out of our personal lives and businesses. Then they propose a shit ton of changes that tells people how to live their life and dictates what businesses are allowed in the State. I know the people they are targeting are fucking retards, but I just can't stand hypocrisy like that.

And also, their platform is a little worse than what was posted earlier. Some things that weren't mentioned here:

- Banning all strip clubs
- Banning all pornography
- Banning all forms of gambling
- Banning oral and anal sex
- Banning the morning after pill (they call it dangerous!)
- Requiring a blood test to get married
- Use corporal punishment in classrooms
- Bringing intelligent design into the classroom
- Oppose any sex education other than abstinence before heterosexual marriage.

There's a lot of other goodies in the document, including calling Martin Luther King a Republican.

Any Texans on this board? How do you feel that it's going to be illegal to go to RedTube and get a blowjob from your lady?

I don't get how this is anything groundbreaking. Hasn't this always been the stance of the right-wing GOP?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I was actually first introduced to the "raw milk thing" in England as a foodie thing. Specifically foodies sought out cheeses made with raw milk.

I was next acquainted with the "raw milk thing" back in the States listening to a rant by a free-market libertarian about how farmers should be able to sell milk without pasteurization and that this regulation was unnecessary government interference.

So I've never actually seen it as a hippie thing.

On a personal level, I don't have strong feelings either way. On one hand I wouldn't mind it being legal, but on the other hand I'd hate to see some kid (especially an infant) die because some stupid parent (at least as likely to be a libertarian as a hippie, in my mind) gave it to the kid.


lungs: does the cheese-making process reduce the risk, or does it remain the same?

Aren't a lot of the quality, real butters and cheeses in Europe made from raw milk?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

lungs: does the cheese-making process reduce the risk, or does it remain the same?

I don't believe so. Pasteurization occurs at about 160 degrees Fahrenheit and any cheese I've ever made the milk wasn't heated to much more than 100.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Aren't a lot of the quality, real butters and cheeses in Europe made from raw milk?

You are right. My problem isn't necessarily the sale of raw milk. It's the regulations attached to it that make me cringe, ie: not enough. Pennsylvania does allow the sale of raw milk but they also have very strict regulations and quality standards. The law that Wisconsin recently tried to pass had very lax regulations attached to it.

One of the farmers locally that is making a big stink about not being able to sell raw milk struggled to get a Grade B permit to produce milk before finally kicking government inspectors off his farm. Anybody that can't get a Grade B permit should not be producing anything for human consumption. I'd be utterly embarrassed myself to be producing at anything but Grade A.

I wouldn't have a problem with farmers being permitted to sell raw milk but they also need to be held to a much higher standard. Drinking raw milk from a Grade B dairy is playing Russian roulette and if this law would've passed in Wisconsin you would see sick people in due time.

Some of these facilities people want to sell raw milk out of aren't fit for a rat to live in.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I don't get how this is anything groundbreaking. Hasn't this always been the stance of the right-wing GOP?

Perhaps. But it's worth pointing out when the Governor and party have been bitching about big government infiltrating people's lives. Then they come up with a platform that does just that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Certainly, the Obama numbers are going the wrong way, but what really caught my eye was the incumbent discontent. 57% are ready to toss out their incumbent. That's frightening stuff for people in Congress.

Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook - WSJ.com

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL

[DaddyTorgo]

Do we think McChrystal (or however you spell his name) gave this interview on purpose so he'd have to resign rather than face the fact that his efforts in Afghanistan have failed?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Certainly, the Obama numbers are going the wrong way, but what really caught my eye was the incumbent discontent. 57% are ready to toss out their incumbent. That's frightening stuff for people in Congress.

Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook - WSJ.com

Originally Posted by story

"The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment....

Nearly two-thirds in the survey said they wanted more regulation of oil companies. Majorities also favor more regulation of Wall Street firms, health insurers and "big corporations."


While a majority still favors greater offshore drilling, support has slipped considerably over the past month as the Gulf oil spill has grown worse—from 60% in May to 53% now.


Sixty-three percent support legislation to reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy sources, even if it means an increase in energy costs.

Seems kindof obvious to me. People are mad about a lack of government regulation not too much at the moment. So, get some quality legislation done and you can fix your numbers pretty quick.


*Tho, in the end, I suspect it all goes back to "it's the economy, stupid".



SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Do we think McChrystal (or however you spell his name) gave this interview on purpose so he'd have to resign rather than face the fact that his efforts in Afghanistan have failed?

Seems like a bit of a loaded question there. Have the Afghanistan efforts failed? And, I suppose, if so, is it time to bring the troops back home? And, if things are going well (or as well as could be expected)- is this going to be a huge problem as I'm sure the transition won't be easy.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Do we think McChrystal (or however you spell his name) gave this interview on purpose so he'd have to resign rather than face the fact that his efforts in Afghanistan have failed?

Tough to blame one man for a war that can't be won by any General.

[DaddyTorgo]

well okay - i could have phrased the question better, but it's something i've been wondering about since this broke.

[sterlingice]

I feel like I should post the Daily Show clip about the war in Afghanistan where John Oliver... well, here:

Video: The Unwinnable War in Afghanistan | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Tough to blame one man for a war that can't be won by any General.

Petreus did it in Iraq. He can do it here ... but then it depends on your definition of "stabilized" and "won".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Certainly, the Obama numbers are going the wrong way, but what really caught my eye was the incumbent discontent. 57% are ready to toss out their incumbent. That's frightening stuff for people in Congress.

Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook - WSJ.com

With numbers like that I wouldn't be surprised if only 90% of Congress got reelected.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

With numbers like that I wouldn't be surprised if only 90% of Congress got reelected.

(and doesn't that right there say something about how broken the system is)

SI

[miked]

People want regulation, but nobody, incumbent or freshman, has the balls to put it out there. The two sides hate each other so much, the R's will just find a reason to filibuster (like they did with the Medicare reimbursement), and the D's are too diverse to put something cohesive together. I mean, there are already people in the gulf region that still want new drilling to commence, even though nothing has been put in place to prevent this from happening again. It puts jobs out there and their reps will whip them in to a foolish frenzy that the evil liberals are in favor of so much regulation that these companies just can't operate (false).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Do we think McChrystal (or however you spell his name) gave this interview on purpose so he'd have to resign rather than face the fact that his efforts in Afghanistan have failed?

The first thing I thought after reading the article is that no one could be so stupid or PR-braindead so as to let that article go to press in that fashion. Even the article's author, in a separate interview, said he was very surprised the final draft came back from McChrystal's camp unedited.

So you have to wonder.

Of course, maybe McChrystal will spend the next year criticizing Obama and run for the GOP nomination in 2012.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Petreus did it in Iraq.

Umm....

it depends on your definition of "stabilized" and "won".

Ah....

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

People want regulation, but nobody, incumbent or freshman, has the balls to put it out there. The two sides hate each other so much, the R's will just find a reason to filibuster (like they did with the Medicare reimbursement), and the D's are too diverse to put something cohesive together. I mean, there are already people in the gulf region that still want new drilling to commence, even though nothing has been put in place to prevent this from happening again. It puts jobs out there and their reps will whip them in to a foolish frenzy that the evil liberals are in favor of so much regulation that these companies just can't operate (false).

I think more than regulation, the key is oversight/accountability, particulary over the government agencies that are supposed to be enforcing the regulations. BP deserves the bulk of our blame but they had a lot of help from the government.

No idea how you do that though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think more than regulation, the key is oversight/accountability, particulary over the government agencies that are supposed to be enforcing the regulations. BP deserves the bulk of our blame but they had a lot of help from the government.

No idea how you do that though.

Send people to jail.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I think more than regulation, the key is oversight/accountability, particulary over the government agencies that are supposed to be enforcing the regulations. BP deserves the bulk of our blame but they had a lot of help from the government.

No idea how you do that though.

The problem is that the MMS (and lots of government regulatory agencies) are in bed with the people they're supposed to be regulating. Fucking system.

[JPhillips]

What an asshole.

'Party of Parasites' author took $1M in farm subsidies
By DONALD BRADLEY
The Kansas City Star

The Raytown farmer who posted a sign on a semi-truck trailer accusing Democrats of being the “Party of Parasites” received more than $1 million in federal crop subsidies since 1995.

But David Jungerman says the payouts don’t contradict the sign he put up in a corn field in Bates County along U.S. 71 Highway.

“That’s just my money coming back to me,” Jungerman, 72, said Monday. “I pay a lot in taxes. I’m not a parasite.”

After a story about Jungerman’s trailer ran in Sunday’s Star, however, some readers called him a hypocrite for criticizing others for getting government help while taking government subsidies paid for by taxpayers.

Jungerman said he put up the sign to protest people who pay no taxes, but, “Always have their hand out for whatever the government will give them” in social programs.

Crop subsidies are different, he said. When crop prices dip below a certain point, the federal government makes up the difference with a subsidy payment.

According to a farm subsidy data base, Jungerman received $1,095,101 in the past 15 years, including $224,763 in 2000. Last year, he received $34,303.

Twice in May, somebody set Jungerman’s trailer on fire. An empty farm house of his was also burned. All three fires were arson, officials said.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What an asshole.

I can't decide if people like this are actually just really really stupid and don't realize it, or are actually "well i got mine so fuck you none for you" type people.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I can't decide if people like this are actually just really really stupid and don't realize it, or are actually "well i got mine so fuck you none for you" type people.

I'm not sure what the point is here, especially when he's right. This farmer is spot-on in his assessment of what the subsidy entails. It's used to even out market payouts when overseas markets offer a better rate than the national rate. The subsidy is done to make sure that U.S. produced goods remain in the U.S.

Now, if you're arguing that farm subsidies shouldn't be paid, that's fine and people like lungs and I who are deeply involved in farm subsidies would agree with you. But a subsidy requires the same work as a non-subsidized crop. The only difference is that the government pays you to keep it in the U.S. This isn't even remotely close to the welfare state that exists through many other government programs.

[Greyroofoo]

Money!
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure what the point is here, especially when he's right. This farmer is spot-on in his assessment of what the subsidy entails. It's used to even out market payouts when overseas markets offer a better rate than the national rate. The subsidy is done to make sure that U.S. produced goods remain in the U.S.

Now, if you're arguing that farm subsidies shouldn't be paid, that's fine and people like lungs and I who are deeply involved in farm subsidies would agree with you. But a subsidy requires the same work as a non-subsidized crop. The only difference is that the government pays you to keep it in the U.S. This isn't even remotely close to the welfare state that exists through many other government programs.

LOL

So many things wrong here. You've gone from turning in your notice to being the equivalent of lungs regarding farm subsidies. Don't insult him like that. You obviously aren't aware of the examples of subsidies paid to farmers to not grow crops, and let the fields lie fallow. Please explain how that requires the same work, and is not even remotely close to other welfare programs.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure what the point is here, especially when he's right. This farmer is spot-on in his assessment of what the subsidy entails. It's used to even out market payouts when overseas markets offer a better rate than the national rate. The subsidy is done to make sure that U.S. produced goods remain in the U.S.

Now, if you're arguing that farm subsidies shouldn't be paid, that's fine and people like lungs and I who are deeply involved in farm subsidies would agree with you. But a subsidy requires the same work as a non-subsidized crop. The only difference is that the government pays you to keep it in the U.S. This isn't even remotely close to the welfare state that exists through many other government programs.

His business is propped up by taxpayers giving him free money. I don't care if he works hard, so does the maid at Motel 6 that pays no income tax that he's bitching about.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His business is propped up by taxpayers giving him free money. I don't care if he works hard, so does the maid at Motel 6 that pays no income tax that he's bitching about.

Yep. If he philosophically doesn't like it he should get a business where that's not the case.

I think these people are probably just selectively blind / stupid about it though.

[JPhillips]

And the EITC that leaves a lot of working poor with no federal income tax liability is designed to refund a portion of their FICA taxes, so it's just their money coming back to them.