or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 39

post #1901 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

Nobody would show up to a Colbert debate.   They'd be too scared to.


I know.....but I can dream....

 

post #1902 of 10454

Dream on, VTRan. Dream until your dreams come true.

post #1903 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLassiter View Post

Dream on, VTRan. Dream until your dreams come true.


I'm trying....just call me George Orr

TheLatheOfHeaven%281stEd%29.jpg

 

post #1904 of 10454

Don't dream it. Be it.

 

 

post #1905 of 10454

Is there a media outlet that they would come to that is willing to pull a bait and switch?

 

"Tonight's debate will be moderated by Cokie Roberts. However, due to unforseen circumstances, Ms. Roberts will be replaced by guest moderator, Stephan Colbert."

post #1906 of 10454

Have you guys forgotten that Colbert is a candidate as well? He should have been on that stage with the rest!

post #1907 of 10454
This escaped my notice earlier. Thanks to Joe. My. God.:

334
post #1908 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Have you guys forgotten that Colbert is a candidate as well? He should have been on that stage with the rest!



...actually, he dropped out on his show tonight.

Now the question is...will be able to get his SuperPAC back from Jon Stewart ??

:)

post #1909 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

Is there a media outlet that they would come to that is willing to pull a bait and switch?

 

"Tonight's debate will be moderated by Cokie Roberts. However, due to unforseen circumstances, Ms. Roberts will be replaced by guest moderator, Stephan Colbert."


hahahahaha....

how about a Mission: Impossible style latex mask 'reveal'....?

 

post #1910 of 10454

This should be fun:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1225247.html

 

 

 

Quote:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $42.5 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011.
 
 

 

I wonder how many jobs those investments via his blind trusts created. confused.gif

post #1911 of 10454

I love it when the GOP itself has to point out the inequities of income and taxation. . Indeed, this should be fun.

post #1912 of 10454

You know I didn't realize how much the candidates really depend on zingers to rile up the audience until they were taken out of the equation.   The result are these carefully designed crowd pleasing lines that I'm sure the candidates practiced in the mirror falling flat time and again.   Out of all the candidates, Newt suffered the most especially when going after the media.   To me, it made for a more substantive debate and dare I say made it classier.   Of course Newt wants the Jerry Springer crowd back for the next one.....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/newt-gingrich-brian-williams-debate_n_1227436.html

 

 

Quote:

Newt Gingrich hit out at NBC's Brian Williams on Tuesday morning, criticizing the moderator of Monday night's debate for keeping the forum's audience quiet.

The crowd, which has been one of the stars of the never-ending series of GOP debates for months, was notably muted on Monday, under strict instructions from Williams not to interfere. Perhaps he was thinking of the last time he hosted a debate, when audience members cheered after he questioned Rick Perry about the number of executions his state had carried out.

While there were some moments of scattered applause on Monday, the candidates were mostly sending their zingers into dead air -- and Gingrich, who loves to play to the audience, was robbed of another standing ovation from the crowd.

 

Speaking on Tuesday's "Fox and Friends," Gingrich said that NBC and Williams had made a bad choice.

"I wish in retrospect I had protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it's wrong," he said. "And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that they're going to side with the candidates against the media."

 

Gingrich added that, in upcoming debates, he was "simply not going to allow" the moderators to silence the audience.

 

"The media doesn't control free speech," he said.

 

The media doesn't control free speech?   What a tool.   Does he whoop and hollar at church?   Or does he heckle Opera singers?   It's a presidential debate for Christ's sake.   The crowd last night should be the norm, not the exception.

post #1913 of 10454
Newt's argument makes him look weaker as a candidate than he probably thought it would. The media isn't going away any time soon. You've got competing applicants for the same job you want on the stage with you. Debate them.
post #1914 of 10454


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post

This should be fun:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1225247.html

 

I wonder how many jobs those investments via his blind trusts created. confused.gif

I want to see his tax records from 10-15 years ago...I bet there's all sorts of interesting monetary gymnastics going on there...

 

I also have a real problem with the fact that Romney gave more money to an organization who thinks that the garden of eden is in Missouri than he paid in US taxes.

The tax exempt status of the majority of these 'churches' really need to be looked at with a fine tooth comb...if a religious leader even mentions a politician or political stance on something, BOOM, you lose your exemption. Don't like it, tough...it's either one way or the other.

IMO, the tax exemption should be revoked for all religious organizations.

Quote:

Romney Gave More To Mormon Church Than He Paid In Taxes In 2010

 

Mitt Romney has never hidden the fact that he has a promised tithe to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but according to his tax returns released today, he gives back more to the Mormons than he pays to the federal government. Since 2010, the Romneys have given $7 million to charity, but over $4 million of that went directly to the Mormon Church, while they paid only $3 million to the IRS last year.

 

The Mormon Church is notoriously anti-gay, having raised an estimated $22 million in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, in addition to providing close to 90 percent of the early door-to-door volunteers advocating for the discriminatory measure. Because of blowback from this effort, LDS has been less aggressive in anti-gay campaigns, although just last week church leaders endorsed Minnesota’s marriage discrimination amendment. Some have questioned whether its involvement in ballot measures should compromise the church’s tax-exempt status and there is an on-going petition calling on the IRS to revoke it.

 

Though Romney never specifically endorsed Prop 8 aside from opposing same-sex marriage in general, the Church’s success in passing the measure may have helped advance his credibility among social conservatives.

 

post #1915 of 10454
The Church of Mormon did stop using electric shock therapy to torture gays until they swore their sexual orientation had changed in the 70's, so progress is being made, but I think I'm going to vote against the church's political candidates every chance I get just to be sure.
post #1916 of 10454

So, here's this: 

 

 

Quote:
As he prepares for his third State of the Union address--and, he hopes, not his last--Barack Obama's likelihood of reelection has soared in the last few days to 56.8 percent, the highest it has been since last July. This movement correlates with Newt Gingrich's increased likelihood of gaining the Republican nomination, now at 29.7 percent, up from about 5 percent. This upward trend also correlates with a simultaneous downward movement of Mitt Romney's likelihood of winning the presidency if he wins the nomination, now at 44.0, down from about 48 percent. 

 

 

post #1917 of 10454

I heard this video mentioned on NPR...

 

post #1918 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham View Post

So, here's this: 




Correlation of course does not equal causation, but L to the OL at the implication nonetheless.
Soon-to-retired Massachusetts Democratic Congresscreature Barney Frank recently said that he didn't think he had lived nearly a good enough life to be rewarded with a possible Gingrich nomination.

ETA: This post, in its original iteration, was a nonsensical late-night shitshow. It's better now.
Edited by Reasor - 1/25/12 at 1:44pm
post #1919 of 10454
post #1920 of 10454

I'm not getting Romney's front runner status at all.   It can't be so simple as him looking like a president can it?   Because the man is a textbook definition of an empty suit.

post #1921 of 10454

I just figured he was the front runner by default due to money and supposedly the best chance to beat Obama. Now the base is starting to delude itself into thinking one of their own might be able to take down the President. Should be an interesting new few months.

post #1922 of 10454

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I'm not getting Romney's front runner status at all.   It can't be so simple as him looking like a president can it?   Because the man is a textbook definition of an empty suit.



This election cycle has really revealed, IMNSHO, how much the party leadership and the media shape the narrative. Romney's been considered the de facto candidate/front runner because...."they" say so. And up until NH or SC, it's what the base has been fed and has been hearing. That Romney's the "best" chance of beating Obama in the GE, though no convincing, concrete reasons for that position are given. Just "because." I've also heard that the right tends to give the nomination to the person who's "earned" it - i.e., last time's runner up. McCain was it last time, so Romney, simply by dint of having gone through it and being the best known AND least crazy (which leaves out Ron Paul*), is the one they're saying is the "best" qualified.

 

I also think the GOP has wanted Romney because, like Dubya, they view him as very malleable and controllable. The party wants a predictable, controllable candidate. Romney's their willing, eager bitch. (From what I've read, once Dubya got into office, all appearances of malleability went out the door. Much as we joke about Darth Cheney, I've read even Cheney got pissed because Dubya so often went his own, disastrously wrong way.)

 

 

 

*I like some aspects of Paul's policies or ideas. But the guy's fucking nuts, too.

post #1923 of 10454

To be fair, Romney IS the most moderate candidate, at least in theory, which is what wins general elections, and until recently he was the only candidate who hadn't shoved his foot into his mouth. And the others are/were a bunch of obvious duds; to their credit, many on the right have correctly identified Newt as a guy who just cannot win, barring a satanic miracle. Romney stands a slightly better chance, and in fact, if OWS hadn't steered the conversation towards economic disparities in the last few months, his corporate shark background wouldn't be as big a deal.

post #1924 of 10454

So this happened at the Arizona Airport today.....

 

r-OBAMA-JAN-BREWER-large570.jpg

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jan-brewer-obama_n_1232367.html

 

 

Quote:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer traded words with President Obama after she greeted him at a Phoenix airport Wednesday.

Brewer and Obama "spoke intensely for a few minutes" after he landed at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, according to a White House pool report. At one point, the GOP governor shook her finger at the president.

"He was a little disturbed about my book," Brewer told a reporter after the incident, referring to her political memoir, "Scorpions for Breakfast." In the book, Brewer depicted Obama as "patronizing" during an earlier meeting.

"I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president," Brewer said. "The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So."

Brewer said Obama told her "that he didn't feel I had treated him cordially."

"I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn't get my sentence finished," Brewer said. "Anyway, we're glad he's here. I'll regroup."

The last time Obama met with Brewer was June 2010, when the Arizona governor visited the Oval Office for a private, 30-minute encounter the White House called a "good meeting." At the time, Brewer said the meeting was "very cordial," but in her book she said Obama had been "condescending."

 

During Wednesday's encounter, Brewer handed Obama a handwritten letter asking him to sit down with her to discuss the "Arizona comeback."

"I thought we probably would've talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another," Brewer said of a potential meeting with the president. "Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country."

This isn't the first time Obama and Brewer have disagreed. In October, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought on by Brewer that accused the Obama administration of failing to enforce immigration laws or maintain control of her state's border with Mexico.

 

For any Arizona Chewers, you have my condolences.

post #1925 of 10454

Why people would vote for Jan Brewer just confuses me completely and utterly.

 

Not the "I hate Mexicans" part, which you know isn't all that surprising. But Jesus, even the most sociopathic Cartel white-person torturer* has got to be less goddamn shrill.

 

 

*Not certain if this is an offical position in the operations.

post #1926 of 10454

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

 

For any Arizona Chewers, you have my condolences.



Didn't Arizona Chewers establish, last year when Gabby Giffords was shot, that pretty much the entire state is bugfuck insane?

post #1927 of 10454

Arizona just passed a law prohibiting aborted fetuses from being used in any food products. So there you go.

post #1928 of 10454

Hey, I don't know about you, but I'm goddamn sick of finding baby legs in my chili. Good on Arizona!

post #1929 of 10454
I won't exactly drop dead of shock if that particular piece of legislative insanity turns out to have its origins in some good ol' down home country corporate slander, akin to the meme Amway started about the "satanic symbolism" on the bottles of their rival, Johnson & Johnson's products.
post #1930 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Arizona just passed a law prohibiting aborted fetuses from being used in any food products. So there you go.



I think that was Oklahoma.

post #1931 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post

I think that was Oklahoma.


if you live in OK and voted for this moran....go into the bathroom, look at yourself in the mirror.....then, as hard as you can, slam your head into the mirror.

 

Quote:

Oklahoma GOPer Proposes Bill To Outlaw ‘Aborted Human Fetuses’ In Food

 

An Oklahoma Republican is pushing a bill to outlaw the use of human fetuses in food, because, as he says, “there is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors.”

 

State Sen. Ralph Shortey introduced a bill on Tuesday “prohibiting the sale or manufacture of food or products which contain aborted human fetuses.”

 

Though he has allowed that he is not aware of this occurring in Oklahoma, or anywhere for that matter, Shortey cited research he did on the internet that claimed that some companies use embryonic stem cells to help develop artificial flavoring. “It would be a public relations nightmare for a company to use” aborted human fetuses for R&D, Shortey told KRMG Radio, so when asked they usually say something like “we strive to do things ethically.”

 

“I’m not entirely sure if there are any” companies doing this, he continued. “But the fact is that there is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors. And if that is happening — because it is a possibility — and if it’s happening then I just don’t think it should even be an option for a company.”

<cont.>

 

 

 

post #1932 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post



I think that was Oklahoma.


My fault, I was thinking of the sharia law ban and banning animal/human chimera law in Arizona (which are both almost as equally loopy).

post #1933 of 10454

Goddammit, Oklahoma, where am I supposed to get my Soylent Chili now?!

post #1934 of 10454

Look away, look away, look away, Ron Paul supporters.

 

post #1935 of 10454
post #1936 of 10454

So Gingrich played the space card in Florida yesterday and promised a moon base by the end of his second term.  When Kennedy promised the moon, it was poetry.  When Gingrich promises the moon, it sounds like a Bond villain.

post #1937 of 10454

Speaking of which, this may be ancient but it was new to me this week: Supervillain or Newt?

 

I got 7 out of 10. That'll teach me to give Newt the benefit of the doubt.

post #1938 of 10454
Newt's campaign has admitted that his claim at the second South Carolina debate, that ABC's interview with second wife Marianne was a one-sided hit job, was a bald-faced lie. Gingrich didn't offer anyone to rebut Marianne's claims other than his daughters, and they were not rebuffed by ABC in producing the news piece. Marianne's claim remains unchallenged by any real cross examination.

In an attempt to redeem himself by performing some useful service for his country, Newt has delivered a hilarious tirade against Mitt Romney while campaigning in Florida. Arguing against the likelihood of a predatory venture capitalist and tax dodge winning the election during a recession, Newt said, "he tries to think the rest of us are too stupid to put the dots together and understand what this is all about."

This came as part of a larger indictment against Romney for foolishly thinking he could obscure his own history in the digital age. The synchronicity with this recent post made me feel dirty, briefly, for having ideas that Newt has also. As Trav McGee's link points out, Newt is also arguing against the viability of his own candidacy, but honest introspection doesn't appear to be a tool in Newt's arsenal.
Edited by Reasor - 1/26/12 at 9:47am
post #1939 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

So Gingrich played the space card in Florida yesterday and promised a moon base by the end of his second term.  When Kennedy promised the moon, it was poetry.  When Gingrich promises the moon, it sounds like a Bond villain.


Newt's motivation ?

 

 

post #1940 of 10454

I love how Newt feels there's money for a moon base but when it comes to socialized medicine for America, we have to think of the deficit.   A moon base would be several times more expensive than providing affordable health care for America.

post #1941 of 10454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I love how Newt feels there's money for a moon base but when it comes to socialized medicine for America, we have to think of the deficit.   A moon base would be several times more expensive than providing affordable health care for America.



But there's no payoff with the medicine gambit in terms of industry growth and technological achievement potential. Being able to profit from moon industry development could be the industry that Obama's been trying to fund with his drives for green technology. The problem is the green industries are largely theoretical in possiblility, while the benefits of a well funded space program have been demonstrated for the last forty so years.

 

I want medical coverage too, but we have to do something to pay for everything. Solyndra style programs don't seem to be spiking jobs in the green industries in a long term measurable way. 

 

I hope I'm wrong, as I don't think anyone is going to beat Obama.

post #1942 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post



But there's no payoff with the medicine gambit in terms of industry growth and technological achievement potential. Being able to profit from moon industry development could be the industry that Obama's been trying to fund with his drives for green technology. The problem is the green industries are largely theoretical in possiblility, while the benefits of a well funded space program have been demonstrated for the last forty so years.

 

I want medical coverage too, but we have to do something to pay for everything. Solyndra style programs don't seem to be spiking jobs in the green industries in a long term measurable way. 

 

I hope I'm wrong, as I don't think anyone is going to beat Obama.

 

I agree with you on space exploration and the spin offs that have developed because of it.   My problem is the sheer hypocrisy of how the deficit no longer matters when building a fence along the entire Southern part of the United States or invading Iran or building a base on the moon.   But do for America what other industrialized countries have done for their citizens more than 70 years ago?   That's where they draw the line?    And also, can you imagine how much money would be freed up if consumers no longer had to spend hundreds a month on medicine or mortgage the house to pay for life saving surgery?    The only reason you and I don't have that right now is because the Insurance Industry has deep pockets.

 

So let's explore space.   I'm all for it.   But let's not pretend that affordable Healthcare for all Americans wouldn't have economic benefits as well.
 

 

post #1943 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

So Gingrich played the space card in Florida yesterday and promised a moon base by the end of his second term.  When Kennedy promised the moon, it was poetry.  When Gingrich promises the moon, it sounds like a Bond villain.



Newt and Romney mentioned their "plans" for the "Space Coast" in the debate. It's so transparently a pander to Florida that I think it's counterproductive.

 

I'm saddened that Americans are no longer inspired by our explorations into Space. When George W announced an initiative to go back to the Moon and eventually to Mars, he was laughed at. Seems we'd rather watch Star Trek than make it happen.

post #1944 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

if you live in OK and voted for this moran....go into the bathroom, look at yourself in the mirror.....then, as hard as you can, slam your head into the mirror.



You know, I've been playing a lot of Grand Theft Auto IV lately, and this sounds EXACTLY like one of the "news" stories they had in that game. That is unbelievable...

 

post #1945 of 10454
I agree that leaders should dream big. Getting out of Afghanistan, socializing health care, moving toward energy independence and perhaps abundance through solar and wind power, and enshrining equality in marriage and employment are the least of my expectations. Those are short term goals. I want a leader who'll inspire people to seize the future. While I wait for that guy or gal to come around, I'm not going to settle for someone who wants to do away with child labor laws. Child janitors working on the moon base would still be better off in school.
post #1946 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I agree that leaders should dream big. Getting out of Afghanistan, socializing health care, moving toward energy independence and perhaps abundance through solar and wind power, and enshrining equality in marriage and employment are the least of my expectations. Those are short term goals. I want a leader who'll inspire people to seize the future. While I wait for that guy or gal to come around, I'm not going to settle for someone who wants to do away with child labor laws. Child janitors working on the moon base would still be better off in school.


But Reasor, it's the Fucking Moon!

 

post #1947 of 10454

I would love to have the America my parents had in the 60's.   Yes there was a lot wrong with it in terms of the Vietnam War and social injustice (just to name a few) but I loved that our leaders weren't afraid to dream big and do impossible things.   I want that back.

post #1948 of 10454

Like I said, when Kennedy talked about going to the moon, it felt like a call to our collective imaginations, an evocation of our spirit of adventure and discovery.  Coming from the less-than-eloquent W and the less-than-appealing Gingrich, it sounds like "Hey neato, I want me a spaceship!"  And Gingrich saying it in Florida is pandering of the highest order.

post #1949 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I agree that leaders should dream big. Getting out of Afghanistan, socializing health care, moving toward energy independence and perhaps abundance through solar and wind power, and enshrining equality in marriage and employment are the least of my expectations. Those are short term goals. I want a leader who'll inspire people to seize the future. While I wait for that guy or gal to come around, I'm not going to settle for someone who wants to do away with child labor laws. Child janitors working on the moon base would still be better off in school.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I would love to have the America my parents had in the 60's.   Yes there was a lot wrong with it in terms of the Vietnam War and social injustice (just to name a few) but I loved that our leaders weren't afraid to dream big and do impossible things.   I want that back.



I agree that all the Obama initiatives that Reasor lists are indeed "big". But they aren't BIG or inspiring (with the possible exception of Alternative Energies). And they aren't really "outward" or "forward" looking in the same way as the Moon program.

 

Here is what Dynamotv and myself are missing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRbkBAOGEw

post #1950 of 10454

There's a simple answer to the space exploration vs. healthcare debate....build new hospitals...but.they must all be built either on the moon or in low earth orbit.

 

Seriously....forget the moon, we need to "get our ass to Mars".

 

IMO, the human race needs to have something like space exploration to focus on.  We need something grand that would inspire future generations to 'move forward' as a species.

Fuck these ignorant politicians (mostly GOP!) who long to go back to "a simpler times"...they're the cavemen who thought it would be smarter to stay in the cave instead of venturing forth and seeing what is over that hill. They're the ones that died of starvation instead of migrating to where there was more food. Don't be a caveman.

 

I have no doubt that the US could pay for both space exploration and universal healthcare for it's citizens...but it's not happening due to the selfishness of a small minority who are more interested in greed than benevolence.   

 

C'mon, what's it going to take for the human race to get their shit together....do we really need a giant extra-dimensional space squid to land in NY for this to happen...because if that's what it takes, I'll kick in $20.00 to get it rolling.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread